CITY OF KIRKLANDCouncil/...The Strategic Plan contains a benchmark evaluation of Kirkland’s IT...

CITY OF KIRKLAND Information Technology Department

123 Fifth Avenue, Kirkland, WA 98033 425.587.3050

www.kirklandwa.gov

MEMORANDUM To: Kurt Triplett, City Manager

From: Brenda Cooper, Chief Information Officer

Date: 04/05/2018

Subject: 2019-2023 IT Strategic Plan Study Session

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends the City Council review and discuss, for future approval, the 2019-2023 City of Kirkland

Information Technology Strategic Plan.

BACKGROUND DISCUSSION

Staff is pleased to present the 2019-2023 IT Strategic Plan to the City Council. This Strategic Plan was

created with Lean processes. The work was inclusive of Council, the community, IT customers, IT

management, and IT staff input. The plan included thoughtful assessments that IT management and staff support, and a forward looking plan designed to meet our customer’s objectives.

The plan is different in appearance than past IT strategic plans. Instead of being a multi-page document,

it is represented on a single high-level “Parent A3” document, five targeted “Child A3” documents that address specific department(s) needs, and supplemental material. The A3 format encourages continuous

engagement with the plan, by allowing Staff to post it on walls, and have ready access to guide

decisions. There is further description of the Lean A3 methodology in the supplemental material (document 9A), and staff is excited to have used this process and tools to arrive at a sustainable and

supportable strategy.

The consulting firm Point B did a very detailed and responsive job creating the plan, Deputy City Manager

Tracey Dunlap provided CMO oversight and acted as the project sponsor, and every department participated. This was a large effort, and IT staff appreciate the engagement and support of the City of

Kirkland’s executive management, customers, City Council, community, and staff.

Strategic Plan Vision and Goals

The Strategic Plan is organized around a proposed vision and goals for the next five years. This vision

and these goals are the foundation of the “Parent A3” described later in this memo. The full Parent A3 is included as the first attachment, but the vision and goals are listed below:

Vision: Connecting the City’s information to the organization and our community anytime and anywhere

to support decision making, efficient and effective operations, and performance improvement.

Council Meeting: 04/17/2018 Agenda: Study Session Item #: 3. a.

2019-2023 Goals:

Sustainable Operations: Provide and maintain reliable, high quality systems, data, and services to meet the organizational goals

Capability Delivery: Succeed at planning and delivering projects while remaining nimble enough to respond to emerging needs

How We Work Together: Operate as one team by fostering a collaborative environment that aligns with

customers’ needs. We promote teamwork, personal responsibility, and engagement

Future Readiness: Explore and cultivate new ways to enhance services, improve the community, become

more efficient, and prepare for change

IT Staffing

The Strategic Plan contains a benchmark evaluation of Kirkland’s IT staffing levels and resource

investment in technology compared to other public organizations of comparable size. The evaluation may be found on pages 12 and 13 of the Strategic Plan Supplemental Resource document (document

9A). In summary, the evaluation found that Kirkland makes a higher than average investment of resources in technology, but has a lower than average number of IT employees for jurisdictions similar to

Kirkland. The Strategic Plan does not assume any additional staff are added over the next five years,

but as a relatively lean organization, there is little staff capacity to do much more than the initiatives outlined in the plan. Therefore, if the Council were to decide that certain IT projects needed to be

accelerated, or that additional new initiatives should be implemented, current staffing levels would have to be augmented or currently envisioned projects deferred.

Strategic Plan Themes

As initiatives were cataloged, several themes emerged that summarize the key business needs in 2019-2023, including:

Improve community outreach through tools that engage and communicate

Leverage analytics and reporting for data-driven business decision-making

Embrace cloud technologies for reliability, scalability, agility, and Disaster Recovery

Enhance support and standards for mobile solutions and platforms to support field-based

business customers Maintain and upgrade applications more frequently to avoid obsolescence, take advantage of new

features, and reduce overall support costs

Invest in IT service management practices that will produce returns in efficiency, operational

reliability, security, and responsiveness to customers

Upgrade IT infrastructure regularly in order to maintain service quality

Seek innovative technologies and business solutions

Other Interesting Things to Notice During Your Review

Scott Watson, the strategic planner from Point B was on-site and embedded as a member of the

IT team throughout the process. This allowed for direct observation and continuous

collaboration with city leadership, IT management, and staff as the plan was developed.

This is the first Kirkland IT Strategic Plan that blends both IT and GIS initiatives. Many significant applications now rely on both traditional and geospatial system components.

A total of 103 initiatives were identified by the business and IT during the course of the study

Each A3 is a logical progression from Vision and Goals to Strengths and Challenges which lead to

actions. It reflects both the as-is and the future state.

The IT Department’s most important task is to provide sustainable operations, and this is in fact

where the majority of staff time is spent. More projects have been identified in the plan as

“Capability Delivery” because new capabilities are strategic in nature. This plan does not

significantly change the balance of time spent maintaining and operating systems. Success measures allow IT to measure progress throughout the life of the plan.

Key business requirements and IT success factors were identified during the Assessment Phase

(see document 9B) and have been carried through the planning process

Document Review Guidance

The following notes are provided to guide and assist your review:

Suggested Approach for Material Review

1. Review the Lean A3 strategic planning approach and key initiative themes sections of this memo

2. Then review the “Parent A3” in document 2, an enterprise view of the key initiatives in the plan 3. Skim the individual “Child A3s” in documents 3 through 7. Think of these department-specific

views of the IT Strategic Plan for each city Director. They include both enterprise and

departmental initiatives. 4. Review the Summary budget information in 8A IT Strategic Plan Budget Summary Part One

11x17 5. Review the “Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, Threat (SWOT)” assessment summaries in the 9A

IT Strategic Plan Supplemental Documentation Part One document

6. Review the Table of Contents in the 9A IT Strategic Plan Supplemental Documentation Part One document for additional areas that may interest you

7. For detailed findings from the Assessment phase, see documents 9B and 9C The Lean “A3” Strategic Planning Methodology The strategic planning process leveraged the Lean “A3” Strategic Planning methodology developed by

Toyota and used widely across many industries. The name “A3” refers to the size of a British piece of paper, similar to an American 11”x17” sheet. The Lean approach suggests that “If you can’t fit your

strategy on a single piece of paper, then it’s too complex for you to follow or for others to understand.” The corollary being “if you insist that your strategy is too complex for a single piece of paper, then you

need to break it down into a simpler form.”

The IT Strategic Plan includes an enterprise-view “Parent A3” showing the key initiatives across the city,

and five “Child A3s” spotlighting city department needs and internal IT needs. Each parent and child “A3” follows a well-defined progression of organizational vision, goals, and success measures, historical

strengths, challenges and root causes. Initiatives are identified to address root causes and lead the

organization forward. Successful execution of the initiatives will resolve root causes and lead the organization to meet the success measures, goals, and vision.

Figure 1 - Lean A3 Strategic Plan Example

The above illustration is an example only. The full-size A3s can be viewed in documents 2 through 7.

When reading an A3, begin on the left with the Vision and progress down the left side. Then move to the

right side (the action plan) which addresses the root causes and adds key business-driven initiatives.

Information Technology Strategic Plan – Parent “A3”

Owners: Information Technology Leadership Team

Sponsors: Kurt Triplett, Tracey Dunlap, Brenda Cooper

Version: 31 March 2018

5. Gap Root Cause Hypotheses - Justification for Improvement ActivitiesSustainable Operations

IT prioritizes customer needs over IT’s own self-improvement of documentation, policies, procedures, standards, and IT efficienciesDR is costly, high effort for low odds event. Must be a biz priority.Cyber threats change faster than IT skills and resources can sustainWe’re behind on defining mobile device standards, supportLack a framework for how/what we should insource/outsourceVelocity, growth of technology change exceeds our ability to keep upLow biz tolerance for upgrade risk + low biz resourcing for upgrades

Capability DeliveryManagers perceived as available resources for project delivery. Culture of working mgrs.City does not have a consistent practice for matching resources to project needs.IT Governance isn’t effectively using all legs of the PM triangle (resource, schedule, scope) Not enough IT staff time available to focus on frameworks for emerging technologyNo recent emphasis on customer training to reinforce daily operational technology skills

How We Work TogetherIT prioritizes customer needs over its own self-improvement Existing org structure worked for years but needs changingAdvances in business technologies are driving increasing overlaps in team roles and responsibilitiesResistance to change and fear of giving up control results in the persistence of siloed practices

Future ReadinessBusiness need for holistic data management is emergingIn an increasingly connected world, technologies need to work togetherReason, value, effort required to maintain real-time accurate data isn’t clear to customersVelocity of technology change is high. GIS technology change even higherEmerging technology for data driven decisions is becoming compelling for biz adoptionWe don’t invest enough time or money specifically for innovation

Improvement Activity(What to accomplish, not how) Lead

Develop a "Tech advisory board" for community input to IT BCIT Service management improvements BCIT Organization structure change BCBusiness Intelligence platforms & delivery TBDEnhanced access to demographic data XJBuild regional data sharing capabilities TBDDynamic city performance management tool TBDImplement cloud platform, security, DR Strategy DGPhone system replacement (Skype in Cloud) DGNew city website and platform BCMore languages on website BC"What's happening near me?" Tool for public outreach (Location-based Notifications) XJCommunications: Expanded use of social media BCCustomer response management AppsTitle 6 language requirements support BCMobility strategy BCNew police evidence system BCTraining program development for city staff BCCityHub Program (ArcGIS Online / Portal) XJSelf-service analytics TBDBusiness and resident city "self service" (electronic government) BCMunis Implementation AppsUpdate payment interfaces to Munis AppsDevelop fiber funding stream for expansion BCSupport parking improvement solutions AppsEnhance EOC technology tools TBDSupport ADA plan BCUpgrade to Adaptive ITS BCExpand WiFi in the parks BCRespond to growth pressures with education program BCGranicus agenda management module BC2022 Comprehensive Plan analysis XJNetwork infrastructure replacement DGUpgrade WiFi in city buildings BCLicense management (s/w asset management) BCMaintain IT operational support for all existing services, applications, and data TBDDevelop Internet-of-Things and Real-time data analytics framework and standards TBDDevelop Smart City framework BC

Capability DeliveryFuture

Sustainable O

perations

6. 2019-2023 Action Plan to Address Gap Root Causes

Goal

How W

e Work

Together

2018

2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

Action Plan 2019 - 2023

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Information Technology Department

Enterprise Parks Public Works, Planning & Building, Development Services CMO, CAO, Finance, HR Public Safety IT Internal IT Infrastructure

1. VisionConnecting the City’s information to the organization and our community anytime and anywhere to support decision making, efficient and effective operations, and performance improvement.

4. Reflections on Current StateSustainable Operations Capability Delivery How We Work Together Future Readiness

Strengths

+ Service Desk effectiveness+ Simple, Effective architectures+ Reliable applications, data, services,

products+ Reliability is embedded in culture+ Recognize importance of standards+ Financial stewardship

+ High quality delivery+ Major project successful delivery

track record + Depth/Breadth of app/tech

support+ Excellent GIS governance+ Cloud services, policy,

experience, adoption

+ Teams willing to help each other+ Customer service ethic+ Cooperative biz relationships+ Depth of business knowledge+ Active regional engagement+ Longevity and low turnover

+ City investment in effective GIS capabilities

+ Staff focus, investment in future+ Staff talent+ Future-focused constituency+ Increasing customer, council future-

focus

Challenges

- Standards, policies, processes, but lots of tribal knowledge

- Maturing Change, Asset, Configuration mgmt controls

- Disaster Recovery- Increasing cyber security risks/types- Mobility support- 3rd party sourcing strategy- Wireless growth vs aging

infrastructure- Application version currency

- Leadership focused on delivery / not enough delegation

- Dept of No = External solutions- Readiness for shift to emerging

technologies: Cloud, Analytics, Internet-of-Things

- Mobility strategy unclear- Customer training emphasis- Loss of city revenue impacts key

IT initiative funding

- Mgmt alignment/cohesion- Siloed teams- Lack x-team processes, tools- Consistent x-team Proj Mgmt- Independent governance across

specialty areas- Calcification of IT org structure- Recent turnover in GIS, Apps

- Holistic data management- Long term tech standards undefined- Stakeholder understanding of GIS

complexity, effort to maintain the city’s digital twin

- Stakeholder and IT understanding of how to make data-driven decisions

- Prioritization of readiness investments

- City culture support for investment in innovation

3. 2019-2023 Success Measures Sustainable Operations

Are your business-critical applications available all the time?When they aren’t, does IT respond in a timely and efficient manner?IT maintains staffing, knowledge to support existing business applicationsIT can quickly build the knowledge, capability to support new technologiesApplications are regularly backed up and can be quickly restoredIT continuously evaluates and eliminates unreliable or inefficient technologyAre the city’s IT assets secure?

Capability DeliveryIT delivers projects on-time and on-budget using good project management practicesTechnology investments are planned, managed, and supported welltechnology costs, contracts align with market and are negotiated in the city’s favorIT provides reporting, analytic capabilities for complex, data-driven decision makingIT remains nimble when responding to emerging business demandsIT is an effective advisor and partner, helping departments use technology to improve their services

How We Work TogetherAre addressing your top business priorities?Are we responding to our customer’s requests in a timely manner?Are we keeping you informed and minimizing surprises as conditions changeDo you understand how IT Governance works and does it meet your needs?

Future ReadinessIT is an effective partner, helping its customers explore and evaluate new technologies that present opportunities for the city

2. 2019-2023 GoalsSustainable Operations: Provide and maintain reliable, high quality systems, data, and services to meet the organizational goals


How We Work Together: Operate as one team by fostering a collaborative environment that aligns with customers’ needs. We promote teamwork, personal responsibility, and engagement.

Future Readiness: Explore and cultivate new ways to enhance services, improve the community, become more efficient, and prepare for change

Information Technology Strategic PlanPublic Works, Planning & Building, Development Services




5. Gap Root Cause Hypotheses - Justification for Improvement ActivitiesHow We Work Together

PW and IT don’t see themselves as a single teamIT organization structure is not set up to optimize support for this group of customersGood relationships between IT Staff and all of these customer groups

Capability DeliveryCity does not have a consistent practice for matching resources to project needsNot enough IT Staff time available to focus on frameworks for emerging technologySome applications are not upgraded regularly (Fleet, Crash Analysis)Two work order systems for PW: Lucity and VueworksNo clear roadmap for self-service

Sustainable OperationsIT is not on the same schedule as PW maintenance center staff

IT could be brought into projects earlier. RFI structure is helpful, but is not really collaboration. DR is costly, high effort for low odds event.IT is behind on defining mobile device standards, support

Future ReadinessNot enough understanding / acknowledgement yet of the need to work hand in

hand to bring future infrastructure to the city.Not enough training for either team (customer or IT) in a future that is bearing down on us fast (e.g. autonomous vehicles).Velocity, growth of technology change exceeds our ability to keep upNo “Smart City” team, standards, or plan

Improvement Activity(What to accomplish, not how) Le

adPa

rent

A3

Enhanced use of 3D/4D tools XJExpand enterprise analytics TBDEnhanced access to demographic data XJ *Move GIS to Cloud DGMove business applications (incl Lucity, EnerGov) to Cloud DGPlan revision software for PW engineers TBDPublic Works 3D portability in the field XJTransition planning commission to electronic packets BCCityHub Program (ArcGIS Online / Portal) XJ *Geo-enablement of business systems XJDevelop fiber funding stream for expansion BC *GIS browser enhancements for historic records XJSupport parking improvement solutions Apps *Remote-sensing capability pilot XJSeasonal worker challenges - processes and tools AppsImplement Tyler Content Mgmt in Energov TBDElectronic submittal of as-built records XJCollect Lidar data XJ2022 Comprehensive Plan analysis XJ *Lucity upgrade XJVueworks upgrade (into Lucity) XJPermitting (Energov) upgrades AppsUpgrade iTron to the Cloud Version AppsMaintain IT operational support for all existing services, applications, and data TBD *Fleet Management System upgrade AppsDevelop Internet-of-Things and Real-time data analytics framework and standards TBD *IT/Customer joint teaming and training on future capabilities BCDevelop Smart City framework BC *Drones for additional orthographic spot use BCAR/VR pilot for inspections BC


Sustainable Operations


Goal 2018

2019 2020 2021 2022 2023


Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4













Strengths

+ Good fiber map+ Systems well-documented+ Funding sources for Dev. Services + MBP is an asset+ PW manages own SharePoint+ Planning Commission broadcasts+ Reliable applications, data,

services, products+ Customers invested in data quality

+ Lucity a success to be built on+ Model for supporting fiber for ITS

expansions+ Permit team works well on EnerGov+ Analytic support+ Web IA project a success+ Dev Services good support for digital forms

+ IT/PW meetings are regular and helpful

+ Lucity project has been a model for great teamwork

+ IT staff have a deep understanding of PW and Planning daily work

+ Success of addressing move to GIS

+ PW, Planning both future facing in outlook

+ Dev Services is often innovative (Skype inspections)

+ Customers (developers) are driving and funding innovation in MBP

+ Staff talent (customer and IT)

Challenges

- No 24/7 support staff during the week

- Disaster Recovery- Mobility support- Wireless growth vs. aging

infrastructure- Application version currency (Fleet,

ITS)

- No mature or written model for fiber expansion opportunities as roads/infrastructure is built out

- Staffing for ongoing project support can be variable based on higher priority work

- Readiness for shift to emerging technologies : Cloud, Analytics, Internet-of-Things

- Mobility strategy unclear- Lack of mobility strategy and process

challenges make Parks & PW seasonal and contingent worker programs difficult

- Working together feels less collaborative than it should

- EnerGov and Lucity are supported via different models.

- IT Management cohesion challenges particularly visible to this customer group

- Internet-of-Things has been a challenge so far

- We have no Internet-of-Things plan or roadmap

- IT and Public works not “learning together” on future trends where we need to work together



Information Technology Strategic Plan - Parks





Strengths

+ Parks and IT are neighbors+ WiFi in the parks works well+ Growing ownership of data

maintenance

+ Civic Rec a success. + Lucity a success+ Data analytics and public tools for

Parks

+ Quarterly meetings+ Good IT staff understanding of

parks functions

+ Parks management is interested in futuristic topics like innovative play equipment

+ Parks management is interested in all forms of analytics

+ New GIS layers can add capabilities

Challenges

- Difficulty pulling data from Civic Rec

- No 24/7 Support- Mobility support- Disaster Recovery- Some parks staff not proficient

with technology- WiFi is only in some parks- PCI challenges with card readers- GIS expertise in parks less mature

than many

- More work to do on Civic Rec- Lack of mobility strategy and

process challenges make Parks & PW seasonal and contingent worker programs difficult

- Parks external website information is poor, has not been prioritized on either side

- Business analyst function in Parks not developed

- Webpage /social media support in parks maturing

- Parks resources are low for webpage/social media support


- Stakeholder and IT understanding of how to make data driven decisions


Automation for daily routine tasks is new for ParksDR is costly, high effort for low odds event.IT is behind on defining mobile device standards, support

Capability DeliveryParks and IT management is very focused on high priority projects, leaving some important project without resourcesFunding sources to add automation for parks limited

How We Work TogetherParks change in management shifted focus to more data-driven culture.Parks is not accustomed to level of support required to keep major systems workingFrustration with IT delivery times has caused Parks to go out on own, (e.g. for cloud apps and boat launch)

Future ReadinessNot enough understanding / acknowledgement yet of the need to work hand in hand to bring future infrastructure to the cityNot enough training for either team (customer or IT) in a future that is bearing down on us fast (e.g. smart parks).Velocity, growth of technology change exceeds our ability to keep up


adPa

rent

A3

Expand enterprise analytics TBDEnhanced access to demographic data XJ *Move GIS to Cloud DGMove business applications (incl Lucity, EnerGov) to Cloud DGCityHub Program (ArcGIS Online / Portal) XJ *Geo-enablement of business systems XJRemote-sensing capability pilot XJSeasonal worker challenges - processes and tools AppsCollect Lidar data XJExpand WiFi in the parks BC *Civic Rec Phase 2 AppsWebsite improvements for Parks pages BCLucity upgrade XJMaintain IT operational support for all existing services, applications, and data TBD *Parks phone call handling improvements DGDevelop Internet-of-Things and Real-time data analytics framework and standards TBD *IT/Customer joint teaming and training on future capabilities BCDevelop Smart City framework BC *Drones for additional orthographic spot use BC

Capability DeliverySustainable O

perations


Goal

Future

2018

2019 2020 2021 2022 2023


Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4













Information Technology Strategic Plan – Public Safety





Strengths

+ We now have an EOC that’s set up all the time

+ NORCOM operational support is improving as is upgrade frequency

+ Reliable applications, data, services, products

+ IT Staff understands importance of public safety and public safety security

+ Mature mobile support (Police, Fire)

+ Current EOC staff is up to date on what actually works in the field

+ Analytics for fire and police+ IT assists with and understands

parking challenges+ Consistent map book production

+ Office hours at KJC helpful+ Quarterly meetings with Police

and Fire

+ Current PD and Fire administration is forward-looking on technology

+ There is a lot of innovation in PD technologies, especially around transparency of PD work

+ PD and Fire both interested in data-driven and innovative solutions

Challenges

- Application version currency (small PD apps, probation)

- Increasing cyber security risks / types

- No 24/7 IT support during the week- IT Apps cross-training is low for

these departments- Mobility support- Shift-based resources make training

logistics, project work difficult

- Fire requests are often de-prioritized. Some requests have been waiting for years.

- PD and Court engagement in IT Steering is critical

- Court JIS extremely old technology- No reliable access to NORCOM data

- Relationship with NORCOM sometimes strained or ineffective

- Distance between IT and PD / Court can be a challenge

- Court, PD, and Fire could use more fully developed business analysis support

- Court has no strategic plan

- CJIS standards can limit ability to innovate



- Strategic plans support technology but lack roadmaps, funding


No 24/7 operational support funding. Weak understanding of how to access 24/7 support when it is availableSupport lead for new tech in KJC not clear (IT/ Facilities)DR is a costly high effort for low odds event. Must be biz priority

Capability DeliveryFunding streams for technology are not established. Many PD/Fire apps do not fit in “Major System” fund and are not otherwise funded.Split support between NORCOM and COK IT is a challenge for visioningCOK IT has no seat at NORCOM table (we once did)

How We Work TogetherBusiness needs, priorities of NORCOM and COK line departments can differNot enough contact between IT and public safety staff to build effective collaborationPrimary contact for IT keeps shifting (Fire DCs/Police captains), and Chiefs often have more critical priorities

Future ReadinessThere is no clear roadmap for PD / Fire technology nor a shared understanding of where they want to be / need to be in five years / ten years.Velocity of technology change is highEmerging technology for data driven decisions is becoming compelling for biz adoption.


adPa

rent

A3

Enhanced use of 3D/4D tools XJExpand enterprise analytics TBDImprove NORCOM data feed TBDEnhanced access to demographic data XJ *Move GIS to Cloud DGHearings by email AppsCourt systems, including Document Management AppsConfidence testing for sprinkler alarms AppsLicense Plate Reader pic display for tickets AppsLicense Plate Reader for patrol cars AppsNew police evidence system BC *CityHub Program (ArcGIS Online / Portal) XJ *Geo-enablement of business systems XJEnhance EOC technology tools TBD *Maintain IT operational support for all existing services, applications, and data TBD *Evaluate/Replace CodeSmart AppsDevelop Internet-of-Things and Real-time data analytics framework and standards TBD *IT/Customer joint teaming and training on future capabilities BCDevelop Smart City framework BC *Drones for additional orthographic spot use BCDrones for public safety and EOC BC

Capability DeliverySustain

Operations


Goal

Future

2018

2019 2020 2021 2022 2023


Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4













Information Technology Strategic PlanCity Manager’s Office, Finance, Human Resources, Legal





Strengths

+ Finance is a great partner on budgeting and purchasing

+ IT staff has a good understanding of how to keep financial systems running

+ Great attention to sustainable operations from all Finance and IT staff

+ DR purchased for MUNIS+ Data analytics for CMO, Finance

+ HR does a great job on SharePoint+ “Other Duties as Assigned”

teamwork+ MUNIS project going well+ Finance / HR directors very

engaged in MUNIS+ CMO an enthusiastic user of GIS+ City Work Plan+ CMO support for Project Sponsors+ LMS success. Collaboration Biz/IT

+ Regular Finance/IT, HRPY/IT meetings

+ IT Apps and business staff understand the financial processesand are engaged in MUNIS project

+ Good business relationships between Fin and IT

+ Work well on franchising

+ HR Director and staff are forward looking

+ Council and PIO very interested in modern/emerging methods of communication

+ LMS, SDS, Project 12 saves work

Challenges

- Increasing cybersecurity risks / types

- Record retention rules can slow adoption of social media

- Current website content management system is outdated and doesn’t work well for social media cross-posting

- Last-minute requests from CMO challenging

- Readiness for shift to emerging technologies, including analytics provided by MUNIS, cloud, etc.

- Many tight time frames for business deliverables (e.g. CAFR) limits install, upgrade timing

- Systems, data don’t support needs of Economic Development

- Quarterly HR meetings less effective

- Primary business analyst staffed by manager in Finance

- Insufficient training on records searching for CAO

- Confusion on roles regarding records





Low biz tolerance for upgrade risk plus low biz resourcing for upgradesNature of business is last minute but some requests can be self-served quickerLimited understanding of app, data complexity

Capability DeliveryCMO culture of running lean can limit available resources for important tasksPrior disruptive upgrades caused low tolerance for risk/change in upgrades, replacementsLack of a framework for insource / outsource decisionsEconomic Development not engaged in requirements gathering for new systems

How We Work TogetherTime to support business process improvements can be hard to findBusiness owner responsibilities not always understood

Future ReadinessRisk aversion on some types of projects (e.g. smart cities, drones) can slow understanding of the possibilities and implementations/pilotsIT and CMO not “learning together” on future trends where we need to work together (e.g. autonomous vehicle)City culture support for investment in innovationDifficult to integrate individual dept strategic plans into a single view of overall city needs


adPa

rent

A3

Expand enterprise analytics TBDEnhanced access to demographic data XJ *Move GIS to Cloud DGMove business applications (incl Lucity, EnerGov) to Cloud DGMove Munis to Cloud (SaaS) DGImproved public outreach tools BCCustomer response management Apps *CityHub Program (ArcGIS Online / Portal) XJ *Munis Implementation Apps *Update payment interfaces to Munis Apps *Geo-enablement of business systems XJCollect Lidar data XJCity takes mobile payments AppsEvaluate UB upgrade or replace AppsGranicus agenda management module BC *Explore kirkland redesign BCImplement text archiving BCUpgrade Media equipment BCLucity upgrade XJTraining on records and ediscovery tools DGRetire IFAS and implement SSRS legacy reporting KMCensus Support XJUpgrade iTron to the Cloud Version AppsEvaluate Document Management AppsMaintain IT operational support for all existing services, applications, and data TBD *Munis upgrade AppsIT/Customer joint teaming and training on future capabilities BCDevelop Smart City framework BC *


Sustainable Operations


Goal 2018

2019 2020 2021 2022 2023


Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4













Information Technology Strategic Plan – IT Internal





Strengths

+ Service Desk effectiveness+ Simple, Effective architectures+ Reliable applications, data, services,

products+ Reliability is embedded in culture+ Recognize importance of standards+ Financial stewardship

+ High quality delivery+ Major project successful delivery

track record + Depth/Breadth of app/tech

support+ Excellent GIS governance+ Cloud services, policy, experience,

adoption

+ Teams willing to help each other

+ Customer service ethic+ Cooperative biz relationships+ Depth of business knowledge+ Active regional engagement+ Longevity and low turnover

+ City investment in effective GIS capabilities

+ Staff focus, investment in future+ Staff talent+ Future-focused constituency+ Increasing customer, council future-

focus

Challenges

- Standards, policies, processes, but lots of tribal knowledge

- Maturing Change, Asset, Configuration mgmt controls

- Disaster Recovery- Increasing cyber security risks/types- Mobility support- 3rd party sourcing strategy- Wireless growth vs aging

infrastructure- Application version currency

- Leadership focused on delivery / not enough delegation

- Dept of No = External solutions- Readiness for shift to emerging

technologies: Cloud, Analytics, Internet-of-Things

- Mobility strategy unclear- Customer training emphasis- Loss of city revenue impacts key IT

initiative funding

- Mgmt alignment/cohesion- Siloed teams- Lack x-team processes, tools- Consistent x-team Proj Mgmt- Independent governance across

specialty areas- Calcification of IT org structure- Recent turnover in GIS

- Holistic data management- Long term tech standards undefined- Stakeholder understanding of GIS

complexity, effort to maintain the city’s digital twin

- Stakeholder and IT understanding of how to make data-driven decisions




IT prioritizes customer needs over self-improvement of important documentation, policies, procedures, standards, and IT efficienciesDR is costly, high effort for low odds event. Must be a biz priority.Cyber threats change faster than IT skills and resources can sustainWe’re behind on defining mobile device standards, supportLack a framework for how/what we should insource/outsourceVelocity, growth of technology change exceeds our ability to keep upLow biz tolerance for upgrade risk + low biz resourcing for upgrades

Capability DeliveryManagers perceived as available resources for project delivery. Culture of working mgrs.City does not have a consistent practice for matching resources to project needs.IT Governance isn’t effectively using all legs of the PM triangle (resource, schedule, scope) Not enough IT staff time available to focus on frameworks for emerging technologyNo recent emphasis on customer training to reinforce daily operational technology skills

How We Work TogetherIT prioritizes customer needs over self-improvement of processesExisting org structure worked for years but needs changingAdvances in business technologies are driving increasing overlaps in team roles and responsibilitiesResistance to change and fear of giving up control results in the persistence of siloed practices

Future ReadinessBusiness need for holistic data management is emergingIn an increasingly connected world, technologies need to work togetherReason, value, effort required to maintain real-time accurate data isn’t clear to customersVelocity of technology change is high. GIS technology change even higherEmerging technology for data driven decisions is becoming compelling for biz adoptionWe don’t invest enough time or money specifically for innovation


adPa

rent

A3

Develop a "Tech advisory board" for community input to IT BC *Resource Mgmt tools and processes improved BCCommon IT Project Management processes & tools BCCommon Time Tracking tool for IT BCCreate more IT Management time for Leadership BCIT Organization structure change BC *Business Intelligence platforms & delivery TBD *Build regional data sharing capabilities TBD *Move GIS to Cloud DGMove Department and City Shared Drives to Cloud DGDesign long-term on-premise architecture DGImplement cloud platform, security, DR Strategy DG *Move business applications (incl Lucity, EnerGov) to Cloud DGArchitect cloud platform, security, DR Strategy DGPhone system replacement (Skype in Cloud) DG *Pilot/Move Small and Medium applications to Cloud DGMove Munis to Cloud (SaaS) DGMobility strategy BC *Training program development for city staff BC *Develop framework for insource/outsource decisions BCGeo-spatial systems performance monitoring and mgmt XJNetwork infrastructure replacement DG *Upgrade WiFi in city buildings BC *Implement software asset portfolio management AppsImplement Change Management in Service Now BCLicense management (s/w asset management) BC *Assets and Asset Relationships in ServiceNow BCImplement periodic architecture reviews BCUpgrade Media equipment BCGIS upgrades XJMaintain IT operational support for all existing services, applications, and data TBD *Traffic Management System Hardware refresh BCAnalytics education program for all of IT TBDAccess to external ongoing industry information BCDevelop innovation program BCDevelop Smart City framework BC *

Capability Delivery


Goal

How W

e Work Together

FutureSustainable O

perations

2018

2019 2020 2021 2022 2023


Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4








100% of IT configuration records updated within last 12 months (2020)100% of written standards, policies, procedures reviewed w/i last 24 mos“Pass” on annual CJIS, WJIS audits. External security assessment every 3yr100% of apps in Portfolio tool have a completed main page100% of service requests entered in ServiceNow. 80% by customers95% of business data accuracy standards met at any point in time (2020)

Capability Delivery100% IT-led projects >40hrs have Charter, Schedule, Closure docs# of Projects, Service Requests identified as “Act of Nimbleness”Annual Customer Satisfaction survey aggregate customer happiness score >90%>75% of new project requests are dispositioned within a quarter

How We Work TogetherAnnual Staff Engagement survey: Benchmark 2018 then improveAnnual Customer Satisfaction survey: IT team effectiveness > 75%Conduct quarterly leadership-topics retreat

Future ReadinessConduct 12 technology briefings to customers and staff each year100% of IT annual performance plans include completion of 10 hours of future technology training or conferences on “cool stuff”Benchmark Kirkland’s technology base against leading technology curves annuallyConduct 1 innovation pilot per IT team each year (start 2020)


Budget Summary - IT Strategic Plan 2019-2023This worksheet summarizes the detailed budget entries on the Expense tab in two different orientations

Summary by Project and Ongoing Operations

Funded Unfunded Partial Funded Unfunded Partial Funded Unfunded Partial Funded Unfunded Partial Funded Unfunded PartialCIP 489,674$ 579,858$ 514,000$ 1,296,274$ 644,600$ 161,200$ 684,352$ 216,300$ -$ 761,800$ 329,500$ -$ 1,361,800$ 185,000$ -$ MSR -$ 200,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Operating -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Service Package -$ 311,551$ 12,000$ -$ 115,811$ 12,000$ -$ 22,500$ -$ -$ 6,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$

489,674$ 1,091,409$ 526,000$ 1,296,274$ 760,411$ 173,200$ 684,352$ 238,800$ -$ 761,800$ 335,500$ -$ 1,361,800$ 185,000$ -$ CIP -$ 466,549$ -$ -$ 619,649$ 196,350$ -$ 662,157$ 196,350$ -$ 726,009$ 196,350$ -$ 736,329$ 196,350$ MSR -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Operating 30,285$ -$ -$ 24,000$ -$ -$ 24,000$ 19,840$ -$ 24,000$ 19,840$ -$ 24,000$ 19,840$ -$ Service Package -$ 30,510$ -$ -$ 30,510$ -$ -$ 11,000$ -$ -$ 11,000$ -$ -$ 11,000$ -$

30,285$ 497,058$ -$ 24,000$ 650,158$ 196,350$ 24,000$ 692,997$ 196,350$ 24,000$ 756,849$ 196,350$ 24,000$ 767,169$ 196,350$ 519,959$ 1,588,467$ 526,000$ 1,320,274$ 1,410,569$ 369,550$ 708,352$ 931,797$ 196,350$ 785,800$ 1,092,349$ 196,350$ 1,385,800$ 952,169$ 196,350$

2,634,426$ 3,100,393$ 1,836,499$ 2,074,499$ 2,534,319$

CIP 285,000$ -$ -$ 285,000$ -$ -$ 285,000$ -$ -$ 285,000$ -$ -$ 285,000$ -$ -$ MSR -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Operating 1,635,963$ -$ -$ 2,024,184$ -$ -$ 1,555,079$ -$ -$ 1,858,490$ -$ -$ 1,635,963$ -$ -$ Service Package -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

1,920,963$ -$ -$ 2,309,184$ -$ -$ 1,840,079$ -$ -$ 2,143,490$ -$ -$ 1,920,963$ -$ -$ CIP -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Operating 4,441,026$ -$ -$ 4,625,536$ -$ -$ 4,818,710$ -$ -$ 5,020,998$ -$ -$ 5,232,876$ -$ -$ Service Package -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

4,441,026$ -$ -$ 4,625,536$ -$ -$ 4,818,710$ -$ -$ 5,020,998$ -$ -$ 5,232,876$ -$ -$ 6,361,989$ -$ -$ 6,934,720$ -$ -$ 6,658,789$ -$ -$ 7,164,488$ -$ -$ 7,153,839$ -$ -$

6,361,989$ 6,934,720$ 6,658,789$ 7,164,488$ 7,153,839$

6,881,948$ 1,588,467$ 526,000$ 8,254,994$ 1,410,569$ 369,550$ 7,367,141$ 931,797$ 196,350$ 7,950,288$ 1,092,349$ 196,350$ 8,539,639$ 952,169$ 196,350$ 8,996,415$ 10,035,114$ 8,495,288$ 9,238,987$ 9,688,157$

Summary by Capital and Operating Costs

Funded Unfunded Partial Funded Unfunded Partial Funded Unfunded Partial Funded Unfunded Partial Funded Unfunded PartialCIP 774,674$ 1,046,406$ 514,000$ 1,581,274$ 1,264,249$ 357,550$ 969,352$ 878,457$ 196,350$ 1,046,800$ 1,055,509$ 196,350$ 1,646,800$ 921,329$ 196,350$ MSR -$ 200,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

774,674$ 1,246,406$ 514,000$ 1,581,274$ 1,264,249$ 357,550$ 969,352$ 878,457$ 196,350$ 1,046,800$ 1,055,509$ 196,350$ 1,646,800$ 921,329$ 196,350$ 2,535,080$ 3,203,073$ 2,044,159$ 2,298,659$ 2,764,479$

One-Time -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Recurring 6,107,274$ -$ -$ 6,673,720$ -$ -$ 6,397,789$ 19,840$ -$ 6,903,488$ 19,840$ -$ 6,892,839$ 19,840$ -$

6,107,274$ -$ -$ 6,673,720$ -$ -$ 6,397,789$ 19,840$ -$ 6,903,488$ 19,840$ -$ 6,892,839$ 19,840$ -$ One-Time -$ 311,551$ 12,000$ -$ 115,811$ 12,000$ -$ 22,500$ -$ -$ 6,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Recurring -$ 30,510$ -$ -$ 30,510$ -$ -$ 11,000$ -$ -$ 11,000$ -$ -$ 11,000$ -$

-$ 342,061$ 12,000$ -$ 146,321$ 12,000$ -$ 33,500$ -$ -$ 17,000$ -$ -$ 11,000$ -$ 6,107,274$ 342,061$ 12,000$ 6,673,720$ 146,321$ 12,000$ 6,397,789$ 53,340$ -$ 6,903,488$ 36,840$ -$ 6,892,839$ 30,840$ -$

6,461,335$ 6,832,041$ 6,451,129$ 6,940,328$ 6,923,678$

6,881,948$ 1,588,467$ 526,000$ 8,254,994$ 1,410,569$ 369,550$ 7,367,141$ 931,797$ 196,350$ 7,950,288$ 1,092,349$ 196,350$ 8,539,639$ 952,169$ 196,350$ 8,996,415$ 10,035,114$ 8,495,288$ 9,238,987$ 9,688,157$

Annual TotalAnnual Grand Total

Operating Total

2022 202320212019 2020

Capital

Capital Total

Ope

ratin

g Co

sts

Base Budget

Base Budget SubtotalService Package

Service Package Subtotal

Annual TotalAnnual Grand Total

Capi

tal

Cost

s

Cost Type Funding Source

Stra

tegi

c Pl

an P

roje

ct C

osts

LODO

Internal Labor

One-Time Subtotal

Recurring Subtotal

LODO Subtotal

Ong

oing

Ope

ratio

ns C

osts

One-Time

Recurring

Internal Labor Subtotal

Project Total

Operations Total

Cost Type2023

Funding Source2019 2020 2021 2022

City Of Kirkland Information Technology 2019-2023 Strategic Plan InitiativesThis worksheet outlines all initiatives in the strategic plan, schedules, and rough resource requirementsColumns shaded in grey are calculated values. Do not update.Sort order: Goal Alignment, Theme, Card Color 3631 Total

824 Infrastructure 311 885 635 754 729 668 587 712 579 546 501 216 202 214 268 174 139 134 117 82 821399 Enterprise Apps 874 1125 1279 1193 1420 604 754 746 448 711 877 477 373 497 449 322 210 178 233 164 189

915 GIS 829 580 819 856 792 687 792 895 905 944 903 778 832 874 943 494 555 148 247 168 227493 Digital Design 132 470 465 462 466 421 291 366 341 380 327 223 187 299 200 145 47 72 48 44 44

Next ID 390 2367 3243 3420 3449 3591 2562 2643 2902 2456 2764 2829 1877 1777 2066 2080 1318 1133 723 874 651 734

109 102 =Total Strategic Plan Items Items per A3= 38 30 19 22 28 35 Work Effort, Duration, Allocation Schedule

# Card Color Goal Alignment Theme Title

Man

ager

Pare

nt

PW/P

lann

ing

Park

s

Publ

ic S

afet

y

CM

O e

t al

IT In

tern

al

Prio

rity

Urgency Customer Move-able? Ef

fort

Dur

atio

n

Infr

astr

uctu

re

Ente

rpris

e A

pps

GIS

Dig

ital D

esig

n

2018

Qtr

s

20

18

Q1

20

19

Q2

20

19

Q3

20

19

Q4

20

19

Q1

20

20

Q2

20

20

Q3

20

20

Q4

20

20

Q1

20

21

Q2

20

21

Q3

20

21

Q4

20

21

Q1

20

22

Q2

20

22

Q3

20

22

Q4

20

22

Q1

20

23

Q2

20

23

Q3

20

23

Q4

20

23

68 b 1 - How We Work Together IT Service Management IT Service management improvements BC x 7 Started IT L XL 60% 15% 15% 10% 2 b b b75 b 1 - How We Work Together IT Service Management Common Time Tracking tool for IT BC x 7 IT L M 30% 30% 30% 10% b b78 b 1 - How We Work Together IT Service Management Resource Mgmt tools and processes improved BC x 7 IT L L 25% 35% 25% 15% b b79 b 1 - How We Work Together IT Service Management Common IT Project Management processes & tools BC x 7 IT M M 25% 35% 25% 15% b b71 b 1 - How We Work Together IT Service Management Create more IT Management time for Leadership BC x 7 IT M L 33% 33% 33% 0% b b b b73 b 1 - How We Work Together IT Service Management IT Organization structure change BC x x 6 IT M S 25% 25% 25% 25% b76 b 1 - How We Work Together Develop a "Tech advisory board" for community input to IT BC x x 7 IT S S 0% 0% 0% 100% b8 e 2 - Capability Delivery Analytics Build regional data sharing capabilities TBD x x 7 Enterprise L L 25% 35% 35% 5% e e e e10 e 2 - Capability Delivery Analytics Expand enterprise analytics TBD x x x x 5 XL 2XL 10% 40% 40% 10% 1 e e e e e e e11 e 2 - Capability Delivery Analytics Business Intelligence platforms & delivery TBD x x 5 2XL 2XL 10% 45% 45% 0% e e e e e e e e13 e 2 - Capability Delivery Analytics Enhanced use of 3D/4D tools XJ x x 5 L L 0% 0% 100% 0% e e e e16 e 2 - Capability Delivery Analytics Improve NORCOM data feed TBD x 5 M M 0% 50% 50% 0% 2 e e23 e 2 - Capability Delivery Analytics Enhanced access to demographic data XJ x x x x x 6 M M 0% 0% 100% 0% 2 e e64 o 2 - Capability Delivery Analytics Dynamic city performance management tool TBD x 5 HR L M 0% 33% 33% 34% o o88 i 2 - Capability Delivery Cloud Migration Implement cloud platform, security, DR Strategy DG x x 6 Q1 2019 IT L 2XL 40% 35% 20% 5% 2 i i i i i i i i i i i89 i 2 - Capability Delivery Cloud Migration Architect cloud platform, security, DR Strategy DG x 6 Q1 2019 IT M S 55% 20% 20% 5% 2 i90 i 2 - Capability Delivery Cloud Migration Design long-term on-premise architecture DG x 6 Q2 2019 IT L L 50% 20% 20% 10% 1 i i92 i 2 - Capability Delivery Cloud Migration Move Department and City Shared Drives to Cloud DG x 6 Q3 2019 Enterprise M M 40% 10% 10% 40% i i93 i 2 - Capability Delivery Cloud Migration Pilot/Move Small and Medium applications to Cloud DG x 6 Enterprise XL L 40% 60% 0% 0% i i i i95 i 2 - Capability Delivery Cloud Migration Move business applications (incl Lucity, EnerGov) to Cloud DG x x x x 6 Enterprise XL L 30% 35% 35% 0% i i i i96 i 2 - Capability Delivery Cloud Migration Move Munis to Cloud (SaaS) DG x x 6 Q3 2021 Finance L L 15% 75% 10% 0% i i i i97 i 2 - Capability Delivery Cloud Migration Move GIS to Cloud DG x x x x x 6 Q3 2021 Enterprise XL L 20% 15% 60% 5% i i i i98 i 2 - Capability Delivery Cloud Migration Phone system replacement (Skype in Cloud) DG x x 5 Q1 2021 Enterprise L L 100% 0% 0% 0% i i i i1 e 2 - Capability Delivery Community Outreach New city website and platform BC x 3 2019 CMO 2XL 2XL 10% 10% 10% 70% e e e e e e e e e e36 g 2 - Capability Delivery Community Outreach More languages on website BC x 6 Parks M M 0% 10% 20% 70% g g g g54 o 2 - Capability Delivery Community Outreach Communications: Expanded use of social media BC x 5 CMO S M 0% 0% 0% 100% o o o55 o 2 - Capability Delivery Community Outreach Improved public outreach tools BC x 5 CMO M M 0% 0% 50% 50% o o o o56 o 2 - Capability Delivery Community Outreach "What's happening near me?" Tool for public outreach (Location-bas XJ x 5 Q2 2019 CMO XL 2XL 0% 0% 100% 0% o o o o o o o o o o57 o 2 - Capability Delivery Community Outreach Customer response management Apps x x 5 CMO L XL 10% 30% 30% 30% 4 o o o o o o58 o 2 - Capability Delivery Community Outreach Granicus agenda management module BC x x 5 CMO M XL 0% 0% 0% 100% o o45 y 2 - Capability Delivery Community Outreach Title 6 language requirements support BC x 4 Fire S S 0% 10% 10% 80% y y65 o 2 - Capability Delivery Innovation Respond to growth pressures with education program BC x 5 CMO M M 0% 0% 25% 75% o o66 o 2 - Capability Delivery Innovation City takes mobile payments Apps x 6 FIN L L 20% 60% 10% 10% o o o3 e 2 - Capability Delivery IT Infrastructure Develop fiber funding stream for expansion BC x x 6 PW S M 30% 0% 10% 60% e e70 b 2 - Capability Delivery IT Service Management Develop framework for insource/outsource decisions BC x 7 Q1 2019 IT M M 20% 20% 20% 40% b38 g 2 - Capability Delivery Lifecycle Upgrade to Adaptive ITS BC x 5 PW L XL 40% 30% 10% 10% p p p p62 o 2 - Capability Delivery Lifecycle Evaluate UB upgrade or replace Apps x 3 2020 FIN L M 15% 75% 5% 5% o o34 g 2 - Capability Delivery Mobility Plan revision software for PW engineers TBD x 6 PW S M 45% 45% 10% 0% p p37 g 2 - Capability Delivery Mobility Public Works 3D portability in the field XJ x 7 PW S S 0% 0% 100% 0% p87 i 2 - Capability Delivery Mobility Mobility strategy BC x x 5 Q2 2018 Enterprise M S 50% 20% 20% 10% 1 i i102 p 2 - Capability Delivery Mobility Transition planning commission to electronic packets BC x M M 0% 0% 0% 100% p p82 b 2 - Capability Delivery Self Service Training program development for city staff BC x x 7 IT M M 25% 25% 25% 25% b b4 e 2 - Capability Delivery Self Service Business and resident city "self service" (electronic government) BC x 5 CMO XL 2XL 5% 45% 25% 25% e e e e e e e e9 e 2 - Capability Delivery Self Service Self-service analytics TBD x 5 2XL 2XL 10% 45% 30% 15% e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e22 e 2 - Capability Delivery Self Service CityHub Program (ArcGIS Online / Portal) XJ x x x x x 5 3XL 2XL 5% 5% 85% 5% 4 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e5 e 2 - Capability Delivery Seasonal worker challenges - processes and tools Apps x x 6 PCS M M 20% 80% 0% 0% e e24 e 2 - Capability Delivery Support ADA plan BC x 4 L XL 0% 20% 40% 40% e e e e18 e 2 - Capability Delivery Remote-sensing capability pilot XJ x x 5 M M 0% 0% 100% 0% e e20 e 2 - Capability Delivery Geo-enablement of business systems XJ x x x x 5 XL 2XL 0% 5% 95% 0% 2 e e e e e21 e 2 - Capability Delivery GIS browser enhancements for historic records XJ x 5 L L 0% 0% 100% 0% e e e e29 e 2 - Capability Delivery Collect Lidar data XJ x x x 6 S M 0% 0% 100% 0% e e104 e 2 - Capability Delivery Munis Implementation Apps x x Finance, HR 3XL 2XL 5% 93% 2% 0% 4 e e e e e107 e 2 - Capability Delivery Update payment interfaces to Munis Apps x x Finance, HR L XL 0% 80% 20% 0% 2 e e e e e19 e 2 - Capability Delivery Electronic submittal of as-built records XJ x 5 M L 0% 0% 100% 0% e e e e30 e 2 - Capability Delivery Implement Tyler Content Mgmt in Energov TBD x 6 L M 5% 80% 15% 0% e e7 e 2 - Capability Delivery Support parking improvement solutions Apps x x 5 PW L XL 20% 50% 20% 10% e e e e e e e15 e 2 - Capability Delivery Enhance EOC technology tools TBD x x 5 XL 2XL 25% 25% 25% 25% e e e e e e e e31 g 2 - Capability Delivery Civic Rec Phase 2 Apps x 6 Parks M 2XL 0% 100% 0% 0% g g g g g g g g35 g 2 - Capability Delivery Expand WiFi in the parks BC x x 5 Parks XL 2XL 90% 0% 5% 5% g g g g g g g g101 p 2 - Capability Delivery 2022 Comprehensive Plan analysis XJ x x XL L 0% 0% 100% 0% p p p p42 y 2 - Capability Delivery Confidence testing for sprinkler alarms Apps x 6 Fire S M 0% 100% 0% 0% y y43 y 2 - Capability Delivery New police evidence system BC x x 7 Police L M 50% 50% 0% 0% y y49 y 2 - Capability Delivery Court systems, including Document Management Apps x 6 MC L L 15% 80% 0% 5% y y y y50 y 2 - Capability Delivery Hearings by email Apps x 6 MC M M 10% 50% 0% 40% y y51 y 2 - Capability Delivery Automate state fire compliance reporting Apps x 7 Fire L M 0% 50% 50% 0% y y52 y 2 - Capability Delivery License Plate Reader pic display for tickets Apps x 7 PD M M 20% 80% 0% 0% e e53 y 2 - Capability Delivery License Plate Reader for patrol cars Apps x 7 Police L L 60% 40% 0% 0% e e e e33 g 3 - Sustainable Operations Community Outreach Website improvements for Parks pages BC x 6 Parks M M 0% 0% 0% 100% 1 g g g59 o 3 - Sustainable Operations Community Outreach Explore kirkland redesign BC x 7 CMO M M 0% 0% 20% 80% o o60 o 3 - Sustainable Operations Community Outreach Implement text archiving BC x 7 CMO M S 70% 0% 0% 30% o81 b 3 - Sustainable Operations IT Infrastructure Geo-spatial systems performance monitoring and mgmt XJ x 7 2019 IT M M 10% 0% 90% 0% b b99 i 3 - Sustainable Operations IT Infrastructure Upgrade WiFi in city buildings BC x x 6 Enterprise L M 100% 0% 0% 0% i i103 e 3 - Sustainable Operations IT Operations Maintain IT operational support for all existing services, applications, TBD x x x x x x 3 Enterprise 3XL 2XL 0% 0% 0% 0% 4 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e77 b 3 - Sustainable Operations IT Service Management Implement Change Management in Service Now BC x 7 IT M M 50% 20% 20% 10% b b83 b 3 - Sustainable Operations IT Service Management License management (s/w asset management) BC x x 4 IT M M 70% 10% 10% 10% b b

Quarterly Resource

Availability by Team

4/5/2018 7:14 PM Page 1 of 2

City Of Kirkland Information Technology 2019-2023 Strategic Plan InitiativesThis worksheet outlines all initiatives in the strategic plan, schedules, and rough resource requirementsColumns shaded in grey are calculated values. Do not update.Sort order: Goal Alignment, Theme, Card Color 3631 Total

824 Infrastructure 311 885 635 754 729 668 587 712 579 546 501 216 202 214 268 174 139 134 117 82 821399 Enterprise Apps 874 1125 1279 1193 1420 604 754 746 448 711 877 477 373 497 449 322 210 178 233 164 189

915 GIS 829 580 819 856 792 687 792 895 905 944 903 778 832 874 943 494 555 148 247 168 227493 Digital Design 132 470 465 462 466 421 291 366 341 380 327 223 187 299 200 145 47 72 48 44 44

Next ID 390 2367 3243 3420 3449 3591 2562 2643 2902 2456 2764 2829 1877 1777 2066 2080 1318 1133 723 874 651 734

109 102 =Total Strategic Plan Items Items per A3= 38 30 19 22 28 35 Work Effort, Duration, Allocation Schedule

# Card Color Goal Alignment Theme Title

Man

ager

Pare

nt

PW/P

lann

ing

Park

s

Publ

ic S

afet

y

CM

O e

t al

IT In

tern

al

Prio

rity

Urgency Customer Move-able? Ef

fort

Dur

atio

n

Infr

astr

uctu

re

Ente

rpris

e A

pps

GIS

Dig

ital D

esig

n

2018

Qtr

s

20

18

Q1

20

19

Q2

20

19

Q3

20

19

Q4

20

19

Q1

20

20

Q2

20

20

Q3

20

20

Q4

20

20

Q1

20

21

Q2

20

21

Q3

20

21

Q4

20

21

Q1

20

22

Q2

20

22

Q3

20

22

Q4

20

22

Q1

20

23

Q2

20

23

Q3

20

23

Q4

20

23

Quarterly Resource

Availability by Team

85 b 3 - Sustainable Operations IT Service Management Implement software asset portfolio management Apps x 7 IT L M 30% 40% 20% 10% b b69 b 3 - Sustainable Operations IT Service Management Assets and Asset Relationships in ServiceNow BC x 7 Started IT L XL 50% 30% 10% 10% b b84 b 3 - Sustainable Operations IT Service Management Implement periodic architecture reviews BC x 7 IT M S 60% 15% 15% 10% b86 b 3 - Sustainable Operations Lifecycle Upgrade Media equipment BC x x 3 2021 IT L L 20% 0% 0% 80% b b b b25 e 3 - Sustainable Operations Lifecycle Lucity upgrade XJ x x x 6 XL L 0% 30% 70% 0% 2 e e e e e e e e26 e 3 - Sustainable Operations Lifecycle Permitting (Energov) upgrades Apps x 6 XL L 10% 30% 30% 0% 1 e e e e e e27 e 3 - Sustainable Operations Lifecycle GIS upgrades XJ x 6 XL L 2% 0% 98% 0% 2 e e e e e28 e 3 - Sustainable Operations Lifecycle Vueworks upgrade (into Lucity) XJ x 6 L L 0% 0% 100% 0% e e e e2 e 3 - Sustainable Operations Lifecycle Upgrade iTron to the Cloud Version Apps x x 3 Q1 2020 PW M L 20% 80% 0% 0% e e e e94 i 3 - Sustainable Operations Lifecycle Network infrastructure replacement DG x x 5 Enterprise 2XL 2XL 85% 5% 5% 5% i i i i i i63 o 3 - Sustainable Operations Lifecycle Munis upgrade Apps x 3 FIN / HR XL M 10% 80% 0% 10% o o o o46 y 3 - Sustainable Operations Lifecycle Evaluate/Replace CodeSmart Apps x 3 Court M L 10% 90% 0% 0% y y y y61 o 3 - Sustainable Operations Self Service Training on records and ediscovery tools DG x 7 CAO S S 100% 0% 0% 0% o17 e 3 - Sustainable Operations Census Support XJ x 5 M 2XL 0% 0% 100% 0% 2 e e e e106 e 3 - Sustainable Operations Retire IFAS and implement SSRS legacy reporting KM x 7 Q2 2018 Finance, HR L XL 0% 100% 0% 0% 4 e e e6 e 3 - Sustainable Operations Evaluate Document Management Apps x 3 Q4 2021 Enterprise M M 20% 80% 0% 0% e e32 g 3 - Sustainable Operations Parks phone call handling improvements DG x 5 Parks M S 100% 0% 0% 0% g74 b 4 - Future Readiness Analytics Analytics education program for all of IT TBD x 7 IT M M 10% 40% 40% 10% b b14 e 4 - Future Readiness Analytics Develop Internet-of-Things and Real-time data analytics framework a TBD x x x x 5 L XL 15% 30% 50% 5% e e e e e e e e72 b 4 - Future Readiness Innovation Access to external ongoing industry information BC x 7 IT S S 0% 0% 0% 100% b80 b 4 - Future Readiness Innovation Develop innovation program BC x 7 IT S S 25% 25% 25% 25% b105 b 4 - Future Readiness Innovation IT/Customer joint teaming and training on future capabilities BC x x x x Enterprise S S 25% 25% 25% 25% e100 e 4 - Future Readiness Innovation Develop Smart City framework BC x x x x x x 6 L L 20% 20% 40% 20% e e e e39 g 4 - Future Readiness Innovation Drones for additional orthographic spot use BC x x x 7 PW M M 10% 0% 80% 10% p p p p41 p 4 - Future Readiness Innovation AR/VR pilot for inspections BC x 6 P&D M M 30% 30% 30% 10% p p

4/5/2018 7:14 PM Page 2 of 2

City of Kirkland 2019-2023 Information Technology Strategic Plan Supplemental Documentation to the A3

Conducted by the City of Kirkland in partnership with Point B

April 5, 2018

City of Kirkland 2019-2023 Information Technology Strategic Plan

4/12/2018 10:57:00 AM Page 2 of 29

Table of Contents

Background ............................................................................................................................ 3

Approach ...................................................................................................................... 3

The Lean “A3” Strategic Planning Methodology ................................................................. 4

Assessment Phase Results ........................................................................................................ 4

Overall Assessment Summary – SWOT Analysis ................................................................ 5

Key Business Requirements: ........................................................................................... 6

IT Success Factors ......................................................................................................... 6

GIS Assessment Summary - SWOT Analysis...................................................................... 7

GIS Stakeholder Feedback Themes .................................................................................. 8

Planning Phase Outcomes ........................................................................................................ 9

IT Vision Statement ....................................................................................................... 9

Strategic Initiatives ........................................................................................................ 9

Themes ........................................................................................................................ 9

Budget ....................................................................................................................... 10

Appendix .............................................................................................................................. 12

Financial and Headcount Benchmark Analysis ..................................................................... 12

General Observations ................................................................................................... 13

Benchmark Calculations ................................................................................................ 13

Risk Registry ................................................................................................................... 15

Organizational Structure and Operating Model Observations ................................................ 19

Organizational Structure Observations ........................................................................... 19

Key Skills Needed to Meet Strategic Plan Objectives ........................................................ 19

Other Resourcing Observations ..................................................................................... 20

Considerations for Internal and External Sourcing of IT Services .......................................... 22

Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... 22

Current Use of External Resources ................................................................................. 22

Usage ......................................................................................................................... 23

Considerations ............................................................................................................. 23

Explanations ................................................................................................................ 24


4/12/2018 10:57:00 AM Page 3 of 29

Background

The City of Kirkland Information Technology department recently completed a new 2019-2023 5-

year Strategic Plan outlining the priorities, projects, ongoing operating needs, and costs to meet

council, constituent, and business needs. This is the third formal strategic plan for IT, with past

plans covering 2001-2005, and 2007-11. The strategic plan will guide Kirkland’s investments in

information technology and information technology initiative priorities.

Approach In September 2017 the City of Kirkland engaged Point B, a Seattle-based management consulting

firm, to create a new five-year strategic plan that includes:

Engaging a wide audience for input, including: The city council, city constituents, the city

manager, all department leadership, key departmental stakeholders, and the information

technology department itself

Assessing present customer satisfaction levels, successes, and opportunities for

improvement

Examining the effectiveness of city use of technology today and staff access to technology

resources

Evaluating the current organizational structure and governance practices

Developing a Capability Maturity assessment for IT processes

Assessing the resilience and reliability of the city’s existing application and infrastructure

technology

Evaluating Kirkland’s plans for adoption of “Cloud” technologies (subscription-based

applications and technology hosted by external providers)

Assessing the City’s Geospatial Information System (GIS) program progress

Analysis of the current technology infrastructure architecture (network, servers, storage,

desktops, etc.)

Identification of opportunities for significant improvements in IT operations and new ways

that IT can add substantial value to the City

Point B engaged City leadership and IT employees in a highly collaborative approach the relied on

direct involvement and input from all departments, as opposed to assessing from outside and

making recommendations. Between September 2017 and February 2018, the strategic planner

embedded himself within the IT department full-time so as to better observe, participate in, and

understand the day-to-day activities and dynamics of IT.

The strategic planning phases included the following activities:

City Leadership, Council, and public input sessions

As-Is Assessment

Insight and Requirements gathering workshops: Geo-Spatial Information Systems, Data

Analytics, Cloud Infrastructure

LEAN A3 Strategic Plan development workshops

Financial benchmarking

Resource planning

Budget development


4/12/2018 10:57:00 AM Page 4 of 29

The Lean “A3” Strategic Planning Methodology The strategic planning process leveraged the Lean “A3” Strategic Planning methodology developed

by Toyota and used widely across many industries. The name “A3” refers to the size of a British

piece of paper, similar to an American 11”x17” sheet. The Lean approach suggests that “If you

can’t fit your strategy on a single piece of paper, then it’s too complex for you to follow or for others

to understand.” The corollary being “if you insist that your strategy is too complex for a single piece

of paper, then you need to break it down into a simpler form.”

Figure 1 - Lean A3 Strategic Plan Example

The IT Strategic Plan includes an enterprise-view “Parent A3” showing the key initiatives across the

city, and five “Child A3s” spotlighting city department needs and internal IT needs.

Each parent and child “A3” follows a well-defined progression of organizational vision, goals, and

success measures, historical strengths, challenges and root causes. Initiatives are identified to

address root causes and lead the organization forward. Successful execution of the initiatives will

resolve root causes and lead the organization to meet the success measures, goals, and vision.

Assessment Phase Results

The City of Kirkland IT department is well-positioned with the skills, delivery capability, and respect

for standards, processes, and procedures to meet the evolving and increasing demands of the city.

The underlying infrastructure is stable and well managed, though significant Disaster Recovery and

technology architecture decisions are looming. The clear feedback from customers is that “IT

delivers a very high quality product.” But, management cohesiveness, delegation, silos, and

governance issues are degrading the overall effectiveness of the department. Action is needed to

address these issues and improve business trust.


4/12/2018 10:57:00 AM Page 5 of 29

Overall Assessment Summary – SWOT Analysis The following Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) diagram summarizes the themes identified during the assessment

phase. The complete assessment results, covering technology disciplines, disaster recovery, processes and procedures, skills and organization,

leadership, application support, and security are cataloged in the final assessment report included in the council packet and on the project

SharePoint here: IT Assessment - City of Kirkland - Final.pptx

http://kirknet/KirkNetSites/ITStratPlan/Shared%20Documents/Assessment%20Phase/IT%20Assessment%20-%20City%20of%20Kirkland%20-%20Final.pptx


4/12/2018 10:57:00 AM Page 6 of 29

Key Business Requirements: During the assessment phase, Point B interviewed departmental directors, deputies, managers, and

key users from all departments as well as the City Manager, Council, and a panel of technology

leaders from companies in the City of Kirkland. They identified the following critical business

requirements of the IT department:

High quality, responsive support from the Service Desk

Clear governance of IT priorities with predictable, visible delivery schedules

Capability to deliver major business improvement initiatives

Flexibility and capacity for limited, prioritized delivery during major projects

Reliable applications, desktop, and network infrastructure

Mobility to meet growing need for field-based work efficiencies

Leadership in geospatial information systems (internal and public)

Enterprise and departmental spatial and non-spatial data analytics

Information security

Financial stewardship

IT Success Factors The following factors are key to the IT department successfully meeting the business requirements

identified by the business:

Cohesive Leadership: Resolve cohesiveness issues. Develop effective, common processes

(e.g. project management) for managing IT. Staff should experience “One Leadership”

Delegation: Keep management focused on leadership, not delivery. Delegate knowledge,

skills, and tasks from management to staff and seniors to juniors

Business Self-Service: Enable the business with training and self-service capabilities, allowing

IT to focus on higher-value competencies

Governance: Develop and execute processes that ensure the effective and efficient use of IT

in enabling an organization to achieve its goals

Nimble Delivery: Maintain an appropriate pace of new or updated business capabilities even

during major initiatives. Smaller deliverables, increased frequency, greater agility

Cross-IT Teamwork: Eliminate silos. Actively pursue a cross-functional, matrixed team

delivery model. Adopt common project management standards, processes, and delivery

expectations

Technology Strategy: Resolve future technology standards before making major investments

in lifecycle or upgrades


4/12/2018 10:57:00 AM Page 7 of 29

GIS Assessment Summary - SWOT Analysis During the assessment phase, Point B engaged Critigen, a nationally recognized Geospatial Information Systems professional services firm, to

conduct a focused review of the City’s GIS technology program. The following SWOT diagram summarizes the results of Critigen’s assessment.

STRENGTH WEAKNESS

Strong customer service ethic

Highly skilled and knowledgeable staff

Responsiveness to priority requests

Congenial personalities and cooperative spirit

Breadth of GIS staff knowledge across multiple business disciplines

Reliability of data, products, and service

Solid annual work plans (citywide and individual) to support city’s initiatives

and allow staff development Robust use of GIS tools and data sources to deliver consistently high-quality

data analytics to a broad clientele

Engaged and representative governance structure through GIS Steering

Committee Active partnership in regional GIS projects such as regional orthophotography

flights

Management can become heavily involved in project delivery

which takes their focus away from management and strategic tasks.

IT projects are managed in silos: GIS can be unexpectedly

impacted by other division priorities and vice versa. Many stakeholders do not sufficiently understand the complexity

and level of effort required to maintain the City’s mature

Enterprise GIS.

Data maintained in separate repositories/business systems

requires recurring, additional effort by GIS staff for intake processing and ongoing management.

OPPORTUNITY THREAT

Increase engagement with departments to better understand their business

requirements and pain points. Identify and advocate for GIS technology that brings efficiency to business

processes or increased service to departments.

Push data management, mapping, and analysis responsibilities closer to the

business as appropriate. ESRI/GIS is well-positioned to help City with Smart Cities/Internet of Things.

As more enterprise systems become spatially enabled or even dependent,

increase interaction with the enterprise applications team.

Continue and expand communication and outreach with departments

regarding current priorities and tasks to mitigate perception of “always busy”.

Encourage and accommodate staff’s enthusiasm for career enhancement (for

example, project management and application development) while maintaining annual work plan priorities.

Workload surges caused by unplanned tasks can impact GIS

staff’s time and capacity to stay current in industry trends. ‘Imminent’ retirement of GIS consultant creates an advisory void

and workload-leveling issue. There should be a clear transition

plan in place. GIS industry trends and technology evolution are changing GIS

professional responsibility requirements. Staff who fail to

proactively adapt to this evolution will impact the GIS program as

well as limit themselves career-wise. GIS staff need to take advantage of the flexibilities within the GIS

Work Plan and their own personalized work plans, and proactively

use effective time management skills to realize growth opportunities.


4/12/2018 10:57:00 AM Page 8 of 29

GIS Stakeholder Feedback Themes Interviews with City departments surfaced common themes about the City’s GIS needs.

Stakeholders were asked to identify existing technologies and processes that they felt needed

ongoing attention to sustainment and areas for expansion. The themes from those responses are

listed below:

Independent Performance - Self-service map creation, analysis, and reporting is a common

desire shared by most departments. While stakeholders are satisfied with GIS service levels, they

appreciate the efficiency that comes from being able to perform less-complex tasks within their

departments.

Increased Access - Departments need increased access to data, analytics, and dashboards that

synthesize multi-system data into useful information for decision-making. Increased outreach,

training, and engagement with departments by GIS staff will be necessary to adequately meet

requirements, provide knowledge transfer, and educate on GIS best practices related to mapping

and analysis.

Outreach and Engagement Tools - The capabilities of GIS as a tool for communication and

analysis are valued by most City departments. Stakeholders are seeking tools that will help improve

outreach and communication with the community

What Is Possible? - While departments have a handle on traditional applications of GIS

technologies, there is desire for insight into and understanding of new advancements and the “art of

the possible” when it comes to building upon the strong GIS foundation that the City has

established.

Applied Training - Departments have a desire for more outreach and training from the GIS

Division specific to their business processes and City data. Third party training, while providing some

technical benefit, is often “canned” and there are barriers to applying concepts directly to City

process and data.

Refinement of Tools for Efficiency - The GIS staff have developed specific models and scripting

that is used in a variety of analytical and reporting processes, but are specific to the GIS team.

Further refining models so that they are more end-user friendly would allow subject matter experts

more flexibility to make changes to model inputs and see the output without having to send these

requests through GIS staff.

Sustain and Expand Existing Technology Investments - The City has made significant

investment in GIS over the last decade and a half. There is considerable desire to maintain focus on

sustaining both the GIS foundation these solutions are built upon, as well as provide ongoing

support and expansion of these technologies into other business process cases.


4/12/2018 10:57:00 AM Page 9 of 29

Planning Phase Outcomes

IT Vision Statement “Connecting the City’s information to the organization and our community anytime and anywhere to

support decision making, efficient and effective operations, and performance improvement.”

IT’s vision statement reflects the fundamentals of high-performing IT departments: Keep existing

systems running reliability, deliver new capabilities, and recognize that information should be

available to drive the business and serve its customers where the business need is, including in the

field.

Strategic Initiatives IT identified 102 initiatives for the 2019-2023 strategic planning period, based on the business

needs gathered during the assessment phase and reviews of each departmental strategic plan.

Each initiative was assigned a description, priority, urgency, labor effort by team, duration, budget,

and external procurement requirements. In order to test the “do-ability” of the plan, project and

operational resources were identified by team and a heat map was used to resource-level the effort

by team and by calendar quarter. Initiatives were then rescheduled in order to meet the plan

without increasing headcount.

Details on each of the strategic initiatives can be found on the A3s as follows:

A3 Content Audience

Parent Enterprise-wide and key departmental initiatives

Council, City Manager, Directors, IT Leadership, and readers wanting an overview only

Blue A planning, development, building service Department Directors and Managers

Green Parks and Community Services Department Directors and Managers

Yellow Public Safety (Police, Fire, Courts) Department Directors and Managers

Mauve City Manager’s Office, Finance, Human Resources, Legal

Department Directors and Managers

Lilac Information Technology Department Directors and Managers

Themes As initiatives were cataloged, several initiative themes or grouping emerged that summarized the

key business needs in 2019-2023, including:

Improve community outreach through tools that engage and communicate

Leverage analytics and reporting for data-driven business decision-making

Embrace cloud technologies for reliability, scalability, agility, and Disaster Recovery

Provide mobile solutions and platforms to support field-based business customers

Maintain and upgrade applications more frequently to avoid obsolescence, take advantage of

new features, and reduce overall support costs

Invest in IT service management practices that will produce returns in operational reliability,

security, and responsiveness to customers

Upgrade IT infrastructure regularly in order to maintain service quality

Seek innovative technologies and business solutions


4/12/2018 10:57:00 AM Page 10 of 29

Budget The planning process reviewed each of the 102 strategic initiatives for budget impacts. The following charts summarize the costs identified in two

different ways:

Summary by Strategic Plan Project costs and Ongoing Operational Operating Costs

The following chart segregates the additional costs of supporting the strategic plan initiatives from the costs to maintain existing technology and

applications

Funded Unfunded Partial Funded Unfunded Partial Funded Unfunded Partial Funded Unfunded Partial Funded Unfunded Partial

CIP 489,674$ 579,858$ 514,000$ 1,296,274$ 644,600$ 161,200$ 684,352$ 216,300$ -$ 761,800$ 329,500$ -$ 1,361,800$ 185,000$ -$

MSR -$ 200,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Operating -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Service Package -$ 311,551$ 12,000$ -$ 115,811$ 12,000$ -$ 22,500$ -$ -$ 6,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$

489,674$ 1,091,409$ 526,000$ 1,296,274$ 760,411$ 173,200$ 684,352$ 238,800$ -$ 761,800$ 335,500$ -$ 1,361,800$ 185,000$ -$

CIP -$ 466,549$ -$ -$ 619,649$ 196,350$ -$ 662,157$ 196,350$ -$ 726,009$ 196,350$ -$ 736,329$ 196,350$

MSR -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Operating 30,285$ -$ -$ 24,000$ -$ -$ 24,000$ 19,840$ -$ 24,000$ 19,840$ -$ 24,000$ 19,840$ -$

Service Package -$ 30,510$ -$ -$ 30,510$ -$ -$ 11,000$ -$ -$ 11,000$ -$ -$ 11,000$ -$

30,285$ 497,058$ -$ 24,000$ 650,158$ 196,350$ 24,000$ 692,997$ 196,350$ 24,000$ 756,849$ 196,350$ 24,000$ 767,169$ 196,350$

519,959$ 1,588,467$ 526,000$ 1,320,274$ 1,410,569$ 369,550$ 708,352$ 931,797$ 196,350$ 785,800$ 1,092,349$ 196,350$ 1,385,800$ 952,169$ 196,350$

2,634,426$ 3,100,393$ 1,836,499$ 2,074,499$ 2,534,319$

CIP 285,000$ -$ -$ 285,000$ -$ -$ 285,000$ -$ -$ 285,000$ -$ -$ 285,000$ -$ -$

MSR -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Operating 1,635,963$ -$ -$ 2,024,184$ -$ -$ 1,555,079$ -$ -$ 1,858,490$ -$ -$ 1,635,963$ -$ -$

Service Package -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

1,920,963$ -$ -$ 2,309,184$ -$ -$ 1,840,079$ -$ -$ 2,143,490$ -$ -$ 1,920,963$ -$ -$

CIP -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Operating 4,441,026$ -$ -$ 4,625,536$ -$ -$ 4,818,710$ -$ -$ 5,020,998$ -$ -$ 5,232,876$ -$ -$

Service Package -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

4,441,026$ -$ -$ 4,625,536$ -$ -$ 4,818,710$ -$ -$ 5,020,998$ -$ -$ 5,232,876$ -$ -$

6,361,989$ -$ -$ 6,934,720$ -$ -$ 6,658,789$ -$ -$ 7,164,488$ -$ -$ 7,153,839$ -$ -$

6,361,989$ 6,934,720$ 6,658,789$ 7,164,488$ 7,153,839$

6,881,948$ 1,588,467$ 526,000$ 8,254,994$ 1,410,569$ 369,550$ 7,367,141$ 931,797$ 196,350$ 7,950,288$ 1,092,349$ 196,350$ 8,539,639$ 952,169$ 196,350$

8,996,415$ 10,035,114$ 8,495,288$ 9,238,987$ 9,688,157$

Cost Type

2023

Funding Source

2019 2020 2021 2022

Stra

tegi

c P

lan

Pro

ject

Co

sts

LODO

Internal Labor

One-Time Subtotal

Recurring Subtotal

LODO Subtotal

On

goin

g O

pe

rati

on

s C

ost

s

One-Time

Recurring

Internal Labor Subtotal

Project Total

Operations Total

Annual Total

Annual Grand Total


4/12/2018 10:57:00 AM Page 11 of 29

Summary by Capital and Operating Costs

The following chart summarizes the strategic plan projects and operating costs by Capital and Operating budgets.

Notes:

Variances in recurring, base budget operating costs are mostly attributable to the fluctuating quantity of annual PC replacements

Funded Unfunded Partial Funded Unfunded Partial Funded Unfunded Partial Funded Unfunded Partial Funded Unfunded Partial

CIP 774,674$ 1,046,406$ 514,000$ 1,581,274$ 1,264,249$ 357,550$ 969,352$ 878,457$ 196,350$ 1,046,800$ 1,055,509$ 196,350$ 1,646,800$ 921,329$ 196,350$

MSR -$ 200,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

774,674$ 1,246,406$ 514,000$ 1,581,274$ 1,264,249$ 357,550$ 969,352$ 878,457$ 196,350$ 1,046,800$ 1,055,509$ 196,350$ 1,646,800$ 921,329$ 196,350$

2,535,080$ 3,203,073$ 2,044,159$ 2,298,659$ 2,764,479$

One-Time -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Recurring 6,107,274$ -$ -$ 6,673,720$ -$ -$ 6,397,789$ 19,840$ -$ 6,903,488$ 19,840$ -$ 6,892,839$ 19,840$ -$

6,107,274$ -$ -$ 6,673,720$ -$ -$ 6,397,789$ 19,840$ -$ 6,903,488$ 19,840$ -$ 6,892,839$ 19,840$ -$

One-Time -$ 311,551$ 12,000$ -$ 115,811$ 12,000$ -$ 22,500$ -$ -$ 6,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Recurring -$ 30,510$ -$ -$ 30,510$ -$ -$ 11,000$ -$ -$ 11,000$ -$ -$ 11,000$ -$

-$ 342,061$ 12,000$ -$ 146,321$ 12,000$ -$ 33,500$ -$ -$ 17,000$ -$ -$ 11,000$ -$

6,107,274$ 342,061$ 12,000$ 6,673,720$ 146,321$ 12,000$ 6,397,789$ 53,340$ -$ 6,903,488$ 36,840$ -$ 6,892,839$ 30,840$ -$

6,461,335$ 6,832,041$ 6,451,129$ 6,940,328$ 6,923,678$

6,881,948$ 1,588,467$ 526,000$ 8,254,994$ 1,410,569$ 369,550$ 7,367,141$ 931,797$ 196,350$ 7,950,288$ 1,092,349$ 196,350$ 8,539,639$ 952,169$ 196,350$

8,996,415$ 10,035,114$ 8,495,288$ 9,238,987$ 9,688,157$

Cap

ital

Co

sts

Cost Type Funding Source

Op

era

tin

g C

ost

s

Base Budget

Base Budget Subtotal

Service Package

Service Package Subtotal

Annual Total

Annual Grand Total

Operating Total

2022 202320212019 2020

Capital

Capital Total


4/12/2018 10:57:00 AM Page 12 of 29

Appendix

Financial and Headcount Benchmark Analysis

As part of the assessment phase of the project, Point B benchmarked the City of Kirkland IT

department against cities of similar size for three key metrics as recommended by Gartner Research:

1. IT operating costs as a percentage of city operating budget

2. IT FTEs as a percentage of total employees

3. IT operating costs per employee

Benchmark data was obtained from Gartner Research “IT Key Metrics Data 2018: Key Industry

Measures: Government – State and Local Analysis – Current Year”. IT and City financial and

headcount data was adjusted per the guidelines prescribed by Gartner for normalizing comparisons

between cities. Overall the findings showed:

Benchmark Comparisons

Metric IT spend as a percent of Operating Expense

IT spending per employee

IT FTEs as a percentage of total

employees

Description of Measure

IT investment level in terms of the role IT

plays in overall business spending patterns

IT investment level the average

organization’s workforce receives

Measures IT support from a human capital

perspective

Benchmark for Cities <$250M in Operating Budget

6.2% $11,387 5.4%

City of Kirkland (Actual)

5.9% IT spend = $8,160,945

City Op Expense = $137,428,413

$13,491 City employees =

604.9 (does not include seasonal workers)

IT Spend = $8,160,945

4.3% IT FTEs = 26.2

City employees = 604.9 (does not include seasonal

workers)

Difference between Benchmark and City of Kirkland

-$359,617 (4.2% below benchmark)

Benchmark @ 6.2%= $8,520,562

+$2,104 (18.4% above benchmark)

-6.2 FTE (19% below benchmark) IT headcount for 604.9

FTE city @ 5.4% metric = 32.6 FTEs

Comparative Benchmarks for Larger Cities

Operating Budget Range

IT spend as a percent of Operating Expense

IT spending per employee

IT FTEs as a percentage of total

employees

$250M - $500M 4.6% $8,842 4.1%

$500M - $1B 3.5% $7,427 2.9%

$1B - $10B 3.1% $7,740 3.3%

$10B+ 2.4% $9,505 3.3%


4/12/2018 10:57:00 AM Page 13 of 29

General Observations Benchmarks are useful for broad-brush comparisons between organizations, but should not

be used to set a figure to achieve. Scoring at or near the benchmark (an industry-wide

average) is not a success measure but merely an indicator of midpoint. The critical factor to

consider is whether the city’s overall investment in IT is meeting (or not meeting) the unique

needs of the city.

Gartner’s metrics do not distinguish between organizations that include or exclude GIS

functions and technology in IT. Some cities may include GIS while others don’t. For the

purposes of benchmarking, GIS was included as part of IT. The City of Kirkland places a high

priority on leveraging geo-spatial systems for achieving the city’s objectives.

Kirkland has a culture of lean operational headcounts in all departments. The 19% difference

between benchmark headcount and IT headcount is indicative of this lean culture.

IT spending per employee is an indicator of the city’s investment in technology and

automation to support city functions. Kirkland spends at 18.4% above benchmark which is

consistent with heavy investments in both Lucity and Munis in 2017. Coupling this with the

19% below benchmark for IT headcount reflects the city’s preference for technology

enablement to drive business objectives. However, it should be noted that IT also receives

high marks for its Service Desk and customer engagement levels despite lower-than-

benchmark headcount.

The city is in a 3-year window of high demand for new technology, while still maintaining a

low headcount (19% below benchmark) in anticipation of lean budget years in 2019-2022.

In order to meet the demand, the city will have to consider whether resourcing, scope (city

demand), or schedule (time to delivery for demand) constraints will determine the pace of

change.

Heavy city investment in GIS technology, new Public Works systems (Lucity), and new

Finance/HR systems may be affecting overall spend per employee, but the overall IT spend

(as a percent of Operating expense) is still being maintained slightly under benchmark. The

strategic plan calls for ongoing investments in data analytics, business self-service tools,

Disaster Recovery, and large IT infrastructure lifecycle replacements for stability. These

ongoing investments will likely continue to drive a higher than benchmark IT investment per

employee.

Kirkland sits in the middle of a high-tech region and, generally speaking its constituents have

greater expectations for technology-centric services from the city. This drives greater

investment in the tools required by the departments to meet those expectations.

Benchmark Calculations All values used during the benchmarking exercise conform to the definitions provided by Gartner

Research

IT Headcount

Organizational headcount = 31 (includes FTEs and temps, but not Media on-call resources)

Subtract 2 GIS for Business Analysis conducted by IT

o Gartner defines business analytics as a business function, not an IT function.

o Xiaoning and Scott estimate a range of 2-3 headcount total. 2 used

Subtract Videographer (Media not typically part of IT)

Subtract 1.8 FTE dedicated to Northshore and Medina support


4/12/2018 10:57:00 AM Page 14 of 29

Benchmark value = 26.2

Total FTE

604.9 city permanent FTE headcount (standard Finance headcount figure from Doug

Honma-Crane)

Does not include council, committees

Does not include 100-200 seasonal workers

IT maintains 765 Office 365 licenses to cover all regular employees, indicating the number of

core technology users

IT maintains an additional 120 email-only Office 365 licenses for council, committee, and

temp workers. Individually, email-only users do not require significant support. Collectively

however, supporting 120 email users is noteworthy.

Benchmark value used = 604.9

IT Operating Costs

Analysis conducted by Doug Honma-Crane (City of Kirkland IT Finance Business Analyst)

Shadow IT costs, from IT functions conducted outside IT, were included in the overall IT

operating costs

City Operating Expenses

Analysis conducted by Doug Honma-Crane (City of Kirkland IT Finance Business Analyst)

Other Considerations

No functions are outsourced (resourced and managed fully external services). Gartner

definition excludes costs and headcount for fully outsourced functions.

Gartner does not address whether GIS costs and headcount are part of IT for the purposes

of benchmarking. Point B followed-up with Gartner analyst who said they do not specifically

include or exclude GIS and no additional information is available on whether the cities

submitting metrics included or excluded GIS. Kirkland considers GIS a critical IT resource

and therefore it was included in all benchmarking calculations

See Gartner Research “IT Key Metrics Data 2018: Key Industry Measures: Government –

State and Local Analysis – Current Year” for detailed benchmarking instructions


4/12/2018 10:57:00 AM Page 15 of 29

Risk Registry

The following strategic risks should be monitored throughout the execution of the 2019-2023

strategic plan:

Risk Likelihood Impact if Realized

Remediation Recommendations

Low business-self-service adoption may limit IT’s ability to scale to meet technology transitions Self-service access to data analytics and reporting was a key “want” expressed by the business during the needs assessment. A significant effort will be expended by IT to develop easy-to-use self-service tools. Failure to drive adoption of these tools will result in IT continuing to allocate time to low-value efforts and take time away from other high-value business needs.

Moderate Moderate Actively engage a business super-user community in defining, testing, training, and driving adoption

Strong, supportive training program led by business super users in a train-the-trainer format

At the appropriate time, IT should drive adoption by referring customers to the self-service tools instead of fulfilling the request in IT

Senior business leadership support for driving adoption within their business unit

Formalize the role of the business super user/business-side applications analyst in job descriptions

IT burnout from continuous high-intensity project timelines The Strategic Plan outlines a series of resource-intensive, high-value investments. Many individuals enjoy working for the city because of the work/life balance. Reliance on the same key individuals, typically IT’s highest performers, across Lucity, Munis, CityHub, Analytics, and other long-term projects will likely result in burnout and job dissatisfaction.

High High Actively monitor IT staff for burnout

Support key individuals with backfill from juniors or others to reduce workload

Use the projects to train juniors and spread the load

Seek opportunities for down time and public recognition for efforts


4/12/2018 10:57:00 AM Page 16 of 29

Current organization structure creates an us/them divide between GIS and Apps as GIS-enabled applications expand IT is organized around GIS and Non-GIS support. As the percentage of GIS-enabled apps grows (a city need) it creates a perception of the GIS team responsibilities growing while Apps is shrinking and a have/have-not divide. More importantly, both teams are high performers divided by a technology skill and the divide prevents leveraging both to grow all business application capabilities collectively.

Moderate Moderate Leverage the Organizational Effectiveness study to define roles and responsibilities that eliminate technology divides

Provide growth opportunities for both teams to expand skills

Actively work to break down the GIS/Apps divide

Leveraging IT analysts to drive business process redesign in major projects creates a reliance on IT for continuous improvement IT has been a key owner of technology-driven business process improvement in the business in the Lucity and Munis projects. While the business is heavily involved, upon completion of the project there isn’t a designated role to drive ongoing, post-project continuous improvement in the business other than IT. This increases support that IT must provide, instead of focusing those resources on new capabilities.

Moderate Moderate Develop business analyst role in each department accountable for driving business process improvements with technology

Form and leverage cohesive partnerships between business analysts and their IT analyst counterpart

Leverage business analysts to drive technology and self-service adoption within business units


4/12/2018 10:57:00 AM Page 17 of 29

Disaster Recovery project will delay other critical business initiatives on the strategic plan Closing Disaster Recovery gaps has been identified as a high-priority initiative by city executive leadership and the council. Executing a cloud migration to close those gaps will be one of the most broad-impact, resource-intensive projects IT will ever undertake. Critical business initiatives committed for 2018 and 2019 will need to be delayed in order to complete the DR project.

High High Establish highly active, communicative city executive sponsorship to drive understanding with business units.

Create a leadership stakeholder team to address conflicts

A cloud migration cannot be executed “in the margins.” Treat it the same as a major application implementation like Munis or Lucity

Engage strong project leadership

Backfill key application operational support roles during project execution

Lack of self-improvement initiatives may impact IT’s ability to maintain high customer service levels, delivery of new products, and system reliability. IT frequently prioritizes customer needs over self-improvement of IT processes. As a result, inefficient processes, practices, and internal IT technologies have developed. These inefficiencies, if allowed to continue, will restrict IT’s ability to efficiently deploy and maintain technology solutions.

Realized Moderate Create visibility to necessary IT internal investments by prioritizing them on the business work plan

Educate the IT steering committee on the impacts of delaying self-improvements as well as the benefits

Maintain executive sponsorship for self-improvement

IT Management cohesion issues and siloed IT team practices may continue to drive productivity and culture issues unless addressed IT’s teams are siloed, operating under varying processes and permissions. Projects are not cohesively matrixed and varying leadership styles, while individually effective, do not foster culture or efficient project execution. Some productivity gains can be made if addressed.

Realized Moderate (increasing)

Create a common operating model for management processes and expectations

Use the departure of the Applications Manager as an opportunity to address core issues that can easily propagate into any new organization structure


4/12/2018 10:57:00 AM Page 18 of 29

City department and constituent demand for (and expectations of) additional technology continues to increase despite predicted down-budget years and annexation revenue loss. As a result IT may be perceived as blocker instead of the reality of economics driving restrictions on new technology delivery. Note: This is likely to be a common risk for all internal and customer-facing city departments

Moderate Moderate Maintain active city executive leadership in defining IT’s priorities in front of the IT steering committee

Drive business ownership of decisions to delay or cancel IT initiatives. “It’s a business decision, not an IT decision.”

Increase IT creativity and innovation in finding lower-cost solutions and workarounds in the meantime

While the city has a culture of “working managers,” a long-term over-allocation of management to projects distracts the managers from the duty of keeping IT running efficiently and removing roadblocks from key efforts. But, keeping “a hand in the work” allows managers to maintain contact with the work product and address small resource needs.

High Moderate Maintain an agreed and effective balance of leadership and work time

Leverage external project management for large or critical initiatives


4/12/2018 10:57:00 AM Page 19 of 29

Organizational Structure and Operating Model Observations

Organizational Structure Observations The present IT organizational structure has been in place for approximately 16 years, with the last

major change being the formation of the department in 2000. Present IT teams include: Enterprise

Applications, GIS, Network Operations, Digital Communications, and the management team. This is

a standard organizational structure found in many IT organizations.

While functional, the basic structure will need to adapt to address trends such as increased

dependence on and integration of Geo-spatial Information into city applications, enterprise data

management, enterprise data analytics, adoption of Cloud technologies, Internet-of-Things, Smart

Cities, increased requirements for IT-wide project management (especially for major initiatives),

increased flexibility and “nimbleness” in delivering small and fast rather than large and longer, and

business self-service. Without adaptation, IT’s ability to meet evolving business needs will suffer.

As part of the planning phase, PointB provided Organizational Design expertise to explore ideas for

new organizational designs. The managers were interviewed for their ideas, and designs from other

public and private organizations were examined. The following guiding principles were identified for

organizational redesign:

The structure needs to best support our customers. Ensure the structure drives customer focus,

service, and support, and that we are easy to work with

Supports innovation

Ensure our structure is aligned: customers, our team, city manager, union

Increase engagement across teams to solve business problems (outcome)

We are ready to embrace change in IT to address what we need to for the long term

Effectively manage change

Design to enable strategy rather than around people

“Form follows function" - no predetermined outcome

There is no “right” answer, but there is a better answer

Negotiating and support tradeoffs among structure, processes, people, culture

Design first, implement later

Team recommends, executive sponsors decide

A follow-up project to the IT Strategic Plan will continue the process of determining specific

organizational changes.

Key Skills Needed to Meet Strategic Plan Objectives The assessment found that IT possesses the key skills and knowledge necessary for the present

business requirements. New initiatives on the 2019-2023 will require new skills and expansion of

some existing disciplines. The following skills and knowledge will be critical to delivering the 2019-

2023 IT Strategic Plan

Cloud – Infrastructure-as-a-Service

o Technology deployment and best practice architectures

o Operational monitoring and management

o Cost management

o Automation and operational scripting

Cloud – Software-as-a-Service


4/12/2018 10:57:00 AM Page 20 of 29

o Application integration

o API programming

o Data warehousing and analytics

o Cloud application monitoring and management

IT Security monitoring and management in a hybrid cloud operating environment (SaaS,

IaaS, On-premise)

Vendor Management – Especially with respect to contract management, service level

management, key performance indicator monitoring and measurement, developing effective

working relationships

Data Management - Data governance. Database operational management, performance

tuning, and health monitoring

Business Intelligence and Data Analytics – IT Infrastructure, Extract/Transform/Load

technologies and processes, end user toolsets tooling

Application data integration – Leveraging of SaaS APIs to develop interfaces between

applications in a hybrid SaaS, IaaS, On-premise environment

Training – to help drive customer self-service

IT Governance – to drive clear priorities

Geospatial Information Systems – Maintain Kirkland’s advanced skills and technology

adoption

Internet of Things, Edge computing, and Smart Cities – These three technologies will

collectively lead to real-time analytical capabilities supporting city services

Other Resourcing Observations Projects governed by resource and may not efficiently leverage schedule and scope

High number of customer projects scheduled into next two years

High-resource-need projects, like Lucity and Munis, will continue with Lucity and Munis post-

implementation improvements, Cloud Migration, Disaster recovery, Analytics, Cloud, Utility

billing, and GIS improvements. The city should consider the ongoing resource intensity

when planning headcount and planning for new capabilities.

New applications and upgrades will all have increased resource needs post-implementation

as the business optimizes the new tools and processes. This is typical for transformational

software implementation projects.

Levers city has to control headcount growth include:

o Schedule – Extending project schedules and start dates

o Scope – Reduction or division of major initiatives into deliverables parts

o Outsourcing instead of permanent headcount for acceleration of large

implementations or for non-mission-critical

IT resourcing levels are consistently staffed for peaks due to ongoing loads (Munis, Lucity)

which have not come off-peak for 3 years and are not likely to for another 2-3 years

(assuming cloud, analytics, utility billing, website projects)

IT Governance presently sets a 1-year work plan. With the approval of the new 5-year

strategic roadmap, extend the 1 year work plan to include 2 years’ objectives even if that

period spans the biennium where initiative budgets are uncertain. Assume the 5 year plan is

strategic and plan, balance resources, schedule, and scope accordingly. A strategic 2-year

focus will allow Governance to maintain a longer planning horizon.


4/12/2018 10:57:00 AM Page 21 of 29

Resolving differences in work management practices between teams may result in some

important cultural and efficiency gains, though not major.

Organization structure changes will broaden skillsets of teams allowing additional cross-team

efficiencies through flexibility of skills of team members (i.e. GIS, Analytics training)

Cloud will shift focus of Infrastructure team to higher value management, but not result in

headcount reduction. Current 3 (Chuck, Ryan, Nick) seems appropriate for the broad nature

of city business.

Service desk headcount of four is slightly higher than expected (since Desktop Engineering is

not part of the service desk) but not out of normal. Considering the high priority city puts

on quick, effective response and the positive feedback from customers specifically about the

service desk, and additional support provided to Northshore and Medina, I recommend

maintaining this number.

Information Security is a key focus for IT and approximately half a headcount for

Information Security is spread across the network engineering roles. The city should

consider an IT security role focused on active management, monitoring, policy, and incident

response so that projects do not distract from operational management. Another option is

to consider outsourcing operational security monitoring and management while keeping

architecture and design in-house.

IT Management spends an estimated 60-80% of time on projects and 20-40% on

leadership. Reducing the project load to 20% is recommended in order to allow them to

maintain a leadership focus on strategy, management, customer engagement, and future

direction. Shifting management away from project work may require resetting expectations

for delivery commitments in the short- and mid-term, but will result in greater long term

benefits for customers as leadership time will bring efficiency, consistency, nimbleness, and

greater focus on customer needs.


4/12/2018 10:57:00 AM Page 22 of 29

Considerations for Internal and External Sourcing of IT Services

Executive Summary From the 1950s into the 1980s, IT was predominantly an internal function. All the IT needs of a

company were grown and executed within the IT department. The pace of technology change has

accelerated in the past several decades altering IT’s role. Today, the range of IT products and

services on the open market allow companies to decide which IT competencies to retain in-house

and which to source externally.

The decision to insource an IT service or obtain it externally is driven by many considerations, such

as market availability, knowledge, scale, business differentiation, and competitive advantage

amongst other factors. While there’s no formula, having a consistent set of guiding principles will

help guide current and future sourcing decisions. In general, consider external sourcing for those

activities that aren’t market-differentiators for the city or that don’t require deep knoweldge of the

business or are commodity functions that are being performed at such small scale that you can't

ever get good at them.

Completing the implementation phase is only the first step. Once you’ve externalized a function,

measure and monitor continuously. Don’t micro-manage how your partner executes the work

(unless they deserve it). The vendor’s performance must be continuously monitored and

managed. Establishing regular review sessions with the vendor creates better working relationships,

so when problems occur they can be solved efficiently, effectively, and fairly.

Current Use of External Resources The Kirkland IT Department often uses consultants to assist implementing new technology, provide

evaluations and assessments, assist with organizational development, surge staffing, and project

management or project oversight services. The following table highlights external resources used in

the past 12 months.

Vendor Purpose

Affirma Design services for SharePoint Online implementation

Building Control Systems Genetec Security System platform design and implementation

Commvault Office365 and Azure data backup design

Eric Utter and Associates Media upgrade in the new council chambers

GeoTerra Eastside aerial mapping project

Latitude Geographics Group Conversion of internal GIS systems from Silverlight to HTML5

MTG 3rd party oversight of Lucity implementation

Myers and Stauffer Network security assessment

Otak, Inc. GIS backfill during the Lucity implementation

Performance Dimensions Group Executive team development

Planet Consulting Active Directory Federation Services design and implementation

Planet Consulting InTune Mobile Data Management design and implementation

Point B IT 2019-2023 strategic plan development

Point B Management assistance

Point B Cloud Migration / Disaster Recovery options

Port Madison GIS GIS

RBC 3rd party review of Apps/GIS issue

Smitha Krishnan (Firm name?) Munis Program Leadership

Superion / Koa Hills IFAS training, technical and process support

Tyler Systems Munis implementation


4/12/2018 10:57:00 AM Page 23 of 29

Usage The following is a list of sourcing considerations to start with and from which to expand depending

on the needs of the city and its objectives. Further explanations and recommendations follow this

list.

Considerations IT Governance:

1. Is the project considered a critical business priority, i.e. higher than other business

investments across other business units that it may displace?

2. Are both the business and IT resources available to properly define the project and execute

the schedule?

3. Can you avoid external resources involvement by reducing scope, rescheduling, or dividing

the project into individually scheduled phases?

Situational:

4. Is deep knoweldge of the business requirements necessary to succeeed? Are your requirements truly unique?

5. Do you have a clearly defined business case that considers both tangible and intangible

costs and benefits for using an external provider?

6. Does IT have the experience, market perspective, and industry best practice knowledge to

execute the project well?

7. Is the role considered an IT core competency?

8. Does the role represent a core competency that should be developed internally to support

the 2019-2023 strategic plan?

9. Can you train IT in the core competencies fast enough to meet the business needs?

10. Is the marketplace for this skillset in high demand and difficult to obtain? Will it be difficult

to retain given market competition?

11. How culturally receptive is the business and IT to external providers for this type of project?

12. When completed, will the vendor provide the ongoing support or will IT have gained the

knowledge and experience necessary for ongoing support? What are the ongoing

operational and support costs?

Cost:

13. Does the vendor offer the function as a standard service or are they customizing an offering

to meet your needs?

14. Is the business function well-defined and adhering to general industry practices, or highly

unique to the business?

15. Is the business function a market commodity available from more than one external

provider?

16. Does the function require technology integrations between internal business systems and

the provider’s systems?


4/12/2018 10:57:00 AM Page 24 of 29

17. Is the function sufficiently scoped and procedurally documented such that the vendor can

accurately price the work?

Other:

18. Does IT or the business have the vendor management capability, time, and controls

necessary to manage the provider and provider quality?

19. Will the timeline for an external provider selection and implementation meet the business

needs?

Cloud Services Considerations (Software-as-a-Service, Infrastructure-as-a-Service,

other subscription services):

20. Can the provider meet the IT Cloud Policy vendor requirements including information

security? Does it meet federal, state, and local regulations that the City must adhere to?

21. In the event the application must be repatriated to an on-premise data center, can the data

be retrieved easily?

22. Is IT ready to give up managing the technical solution of external technology? You identify

the functionality needed. The vendor owns the process and technology. Being prescriptive

about how they do the work does not allow the vendor to optimize or create scale across all

of their customers, nor does it allow you to take advantage of innovations they can offer.

23. Are you ready to look beyond the big providers for Cloud service? Providers like Azure,

Google, and Amazon may have scale and get the most attention, but they may not meet

your true needs, or care about a client of your size.

24. Have you examined the capabilities available in the market? Play the field. Understand the

breadth of providers and their unique technical, financial, contractual, and compliance

capabilities.

25. Will your preferred vendor be an enduring solution? – In the technology world new

businesses are continuously opening and closing. Pick a provider with scale, a broadly

enticing offering, and the resources to grow and improve.

26. Is your decision-making process vendor agnostic and sound? Identify your true business,

technical, contractual and process requirements. Evaluate and selected well. Negotiate

well. Implement well. Manage well.

Explanations

IS DEEP KNOWELDGE OF THE BUSINESS REQUIREMENTS NECESSARY TO SUCCEEED? ARE

YOUR REQUIREMENTS TRULY UNIQUE?

The requirement for deep knowledge indicates a complex or special function or a function

that is unique to a business.

Recommendation

The more one needs to know about the business requirements and the more unique those

requirements are, the more you should lean to insourcing. Providers are efficient at

commodities that can be aggregated across businesses and provided at-scale.

DO YOU HAVE A CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BUSINESS CASE FOR OUTSOURCING?

Transition costs for external functions can be significant. Understanding all the costs and

benefits are critical. Outsourcing a function can (positively or negatively) impact operations,


4/12/2018 10:57:00 AM Page 25 of 29

risk, insurance, culture, employee engagement, technology, and other factors. The cost of

disruption, failure and repatriating, once the function has been outsourced, is even greater.

Recommendation:

Carefully study the business case for external sourcing before acting. Identify the tangible

and intangible costs and benefits, and the risks associated with operating the function

internally and externally. If the business case isn’t definitive, revisit the problem you’re

trying to solve and re-examine the root causes.

DO YOU HAVE A CLEARLY DEFINED BUSINESS CASE THAT CONSIDERS BOTH TANGIBLE AND

INTANGIBLE COSTS AND BENEFITS FOR USING AN EXTERNAL PROVIDER?

Focusing only on the cost of a project and its direct benefits may overlook other tangible and

intangible benefits of the project. The cost of externalization can be outweighed by the

benefits of freeing up personnel to work on higher-value tasks, shifting support to new

business opportunities without the overhead of supporting the old, reducing operational

drudgery, or by investing that time in training to get employees ready for new business

challenges.

Recommendation:

When building a business case, list all tangible and intangible benefits, and direct and

indirect costs. Evaluate the monetary value of side benefits, such as indirect productivity

gains, and include those in the business proposal.

DOES YOUR BUSINESS CASE CONSIDER THE TRANSITION COSTS?

Transition costs for external functions can be significant. Outsourcing a function can

(positively or negatively) impact operations, risk, insurance, culture, employee engagement,

technology, and other factors. The cost of disruption, failure and repatriating, once the

function has been outsourced, is even greater.

Recommendation:

Document and then factor the people, process, and technology transition costs and the

various risk vectors into your payback calculations. Paybacks based on operating costs alone

won’t pencil out until the transition costs are accounted for.

DOES IT HAVE THE EXPERIENCE, MARKET PERSPECTIVE, AND INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICE

KNOWLEDGE TO EXECUTE THE PROJECT WELL?

Experience and knowledge can be gained from external providers or from your peer

network.

Recommendation:

Don’t reinvent the wheel. An investment in understanding the best practices and pitfalls

others have made will significantly reduce the overall risk to the project.

IS THE ROLE CONSIDERED AN IT CORE COMPETENCY? CAN IT BE TRAINED? SOON

ENOUGH?

Core competencies are functions that drive unique, critical, or cultural business value, are

market differentiators that create a competitive business advantage. Core competencies

may be current or future needs. Generally speaking, functions that are candidates for

external providers are not seen as core competencies.

Recommendation:


4/12/2018 10:57:00 AM Page 26 of 29

Core competencies should be maintained in-house. Look for other non-core competencies to

outsource. Be careful not to unnecessarily merge core and non-core competencies. For

example, if your core competency is creating art, consider whether the art design and

creation is your competitive differentiator, while the routine publication and production of

the art can be outsourced.

If a skill is not a core competency today, but will be to support future needs, leverage the

project to train and to reinforce the skill with experience. If the core competency cannot be

developed in the time required to deliver the function, leverage external providers to initiate

the project and plan to hand over skills as the project progresses such that at the end the

core competency is retained in-house.

IS THE NEED TRANSIENT OR OF LOW BUSINESS VALUE?

High volume, non-core competencies are good targets for external sourcing. But what about

core competency products that are low risk and transient in nature? Consider a flyer for a

one-time event by an art company. While art may be a core competency, the flyer may not

need the attention of senior graphic artists whose time is better spent on higher value

works.

Recommendation:

If the risk and impact of a transient need doesn’t merit the cost of using highly-skilled

internal resources, consider whether you can provide a short conversation, plus standards

and guidelines to an external provider and get what you need.

IS THE MARKETPLACE FOR THIS SKILLSET IN HIGH DEMAND AND DIFFICULT TO OBTAIN?

WILL IT BE DIFFICULT TO RETAIN GIVEN MARKET COMPETITION?

Sometimes, due to industry, location, or salary it is difficult to hire, train, and retain the

specialty skills necessary to support a technology or business process. Market competition

may draw employees or candidates to more attractive companies that need lots of those

skills and who pay better.

Recommendation:

If you can’t easily acquire and retain the critical skills necessary to support the function,

consider taking advantage of an external provider that focuses on retaining and growing the

skills, even if that is in a staff augmentation arrangement. The additional cost may be offset

by reducing the risk associated with single-point-of-knowledge is promoted or leaves for a

new opportunity.

HOW CULTURALLY RECEPTIVE IS THE BUSINESS AND IT TO EXTERNAL PROVIDERS FOR

THIS TYPE OF PROJECT?

Outsourcing may breed feelings that other jobs are in jeopardy. “Will I be next?” In

companies where promotion-from-within is a cultural tenet, external providers can have a

negative perception.

Recommendation:

Consider whether the cultural impacts to the organization outweigh the benefits of external

sourcing. Develop an effective organizational change management plan and communicate

openly and broadly.

WHEN COMPLETED, WILL THE VENDOR PROVIDE THE ONGOING SUPPORT OR WILL IT HAVE

GAINED THE KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE NECESSARY FOR ONGOING SUPPORT? WHAT

ARE THE ONGOING OPERATIONAL AND SUPPORT COSTS?


4/12/2018 10:57:00 AM Page 27 of 29

Often, projects focus on the immediate deliverable, like an application or service, and

neglect to understand the requirements for lifetime support. A great example is custom

software. The vendor may deliver the product, but not the ongoing enhancements, fixes,

security patches, and compatibility with continuously evolving technology standards. If IT is

expected to maintain the product, they will need the training and knowledge as a core

competency. If not, the business must budget for ongoing support, maintenance, and

security.

Recommendation:

When developing the project estimate, analyze the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) model for

the expected lifetime of the product or service, not just the initial delivery. Then determine

how to source the operational support and maintenance.

DOES THE VENDOR OFFER THE FUNCTION AS A STANDARD SERVICE OR ARE THEY

CUSTOMIZING AN OFFERING TO MEET YOUR NEEDS?

A vendor will incur higher costs if they have to maintain a customized offering for an

individual client and those costs will be passed on to the customer.

Recommendation:

Consider the trade-offs of making business process changes to adapt to the standard, best-

practices of your vendor solution. If the business process cannot be changed, be prepared to

spend more to outsource the function.

IS THE BUSINESS FUNCTION WELL-DEFINED AND ADHERING TO GENERAL INDUSTRY

PRACTICES, OR HIGHLY UNIQUE TO THE BUSINESS?

Standardized, well-defined functions are easier for an outsourcer to understand, predict,

develop processes to handle, and apply continuous improvement to increase their margin. If

the process is non-standard and unpredictable, and requires them to regularly engage with

you to address exceptions it doesn’t allow them to optimize or create economies of scale

across all their customers. The outsourcer then increases the amount of knowledge

workers and risk, driving up prices.

Recommendation:

Apply LEAN or continuous improvement methodologies to standardize the process ahead of

outsourcing. Do not outsource a mess…fix it first. If a process is inherently unpredictable it

should be managed in-house.

IS THE BUSINESS FUNCTION A COMMODITY NEEDED BY MANY BUSINESSES AND

AVAILABLE FROM MORE THAN ONE EXTERNAL PROVIDER?

A common reason for sourcing externally is to take advantage of economies of scale of

specialty vendors, who through volume, repeatability, and predictability can drive down

costs. Market competition between providers drives down costs. Combining those two

factors will get the best prices and provide you with multiple options should one provider

fail.

Recommendation:

Before you decide that your business function is too unique to source externally, consult the

providers. Often their capabilities are adaptable to a broader set of needs and while you see

your needs as unique, they see them as common variances. Survey the market for

providers who can meet your needs and leverage multiple customers to achieve economies

of scale that, individually, you can’t


4/12/2018 10:57:00 AM Page 28 of 29

DOES THE FUNCTION REQUIRE TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATIONS BETWEEN INTERNAL

BUSINESS SYSTEMS AND THE PROVIDER’S SYSTEMS?

Unless the process is paper-based there are likely application integrations that are needed

between the business and the outsourcing. For example, interactions with customers by a

help desk vendor may require tickets to be created in IT’s service desk system so that IT can

receive escalations from the vendor. Up front investments may be required to establish

technology integrations. The more complex the integration, the higher the costs to create

and maintain the integration.

Recommendation:

Outsourcing a function without the necessary technical integrations increases the handoffs

and decreases efficiency. When considering outsourcing, identify the business and technical

handoffs that will be required to integrate the outsourced function with in-house processes.

Include the cost of building and maintaining those interfaces in the ROI model.

IS THE FUNCTION SUFFICIENTLY SCOPED AND PROCEDURALLY DOCUMENTED SUCH THAT

THE VENDOR CAN ACCURATELY PRICE THE WORK?

Often processes and procedures are “tribal knowledge.” The high-level process may be

known, but the details and especially the exception-handling procedures are only known by

the process executors. Unclear and undocumented procedures create risk as the vendor

must develop them. While vendors often will bid to document the processes, pricing can

change significantly if the vendor determines the work exceeds the original scope. If they’ve

already taken ownership for the process, you are less likely to take it back and more likely to

pay the increased fees.

Recommendation:

When considering whether a function should be sourced externally, first start by clearly

documenting the requirements, processes, procedures, and quality controls. Measure the

controls and identify exceptions. Use the documentation to define the function and change

orders in the vendor pricing. If it’s necessary to have the vendor document the procedures,

have that work done on-premises and bid it separately from the execution contract. Also

consider whether your requirements change frequently (or will over the near term as the

business function is refined). Changing needs are poor candidates for external sourcing.

DOES IT OR THE BUSINESS HAVE THE VENDOR MANAGEMENT CAPABILITY, TIME, AND

CONTROLS NECESSARY TO MANAGE THE PROVIDER AND PROVIDER QUALITY?

External services require regular oversight and effective controls in order to maintain quality

and control costs. This requires the development of strong Vendor Management practices,

regular communications with the vendor, automated quality control monitoring, and time

allocated to maintain the oversight effectively.

Recommendation:

Invest in strong vendor management skills and oversight. Don’t assume that the person

who managed or executed the process in-house has the skills required to manage the

vendor. It’s a different skill set. Some organizations establish controls and metrics and

hand the vendor management over to a dedicated team, while others keep management

locally. Identify the necessary controls and control reporting and build them into the

contract. Don’t assume the vendor will do this for you, or that their interpretation of their

own controls is sufficient. Clear controls, metrics, and incentives create a more effective

partnership. Resource the role appropriately to ensure focus is maintained.


4/12/2018 10:57:00 AM Page 29 of 29

WILL THE TIMELINE FOR AN EXTERNAL PROVIDER SELECTION AND IMPLEMENTATION

MEET THE BUSINESS NEEDS?

If the project cannot be executed with in-house skills and knowledge, then the duration of

the training required to build the project or to conduct a proper vendor selection and

contracting process must be built into the schedule. The impact may influence your

decision.

Recommendation:

Don’t rush a vendor selection or assume skills that IT doesn’t have. Both of these

approaches significantly increase the risk and overall business cost of delivering the project

well. Plan accordingly and consider which approach will allow the business deadline to be

met (or consider changing the deadline).

IT Strategic Plann

ing –As‐Is Assessm

ent

point b

IT Strategic PlanningDiscovery and Assessment

1

December 2017

DRAFT – For IT Review Purposes Only ‐ Do Not Distribute

IT Strategic Plann


ent

point b

Executive Summary

2

Topic

Data Center Facilities

Servers, Storage

Network

Desktop and Productivity

Disaster Recovery

Processes and Procedures

Skills & Organization

Leadership

Application Support

GIS Support*

Security**

Budget

The City of Kirkland IT department is well‐positioned with the skills, delivery capability, and respect for standards, processes, and procedures to meet the evolving and increasing demands of the city. The underlying infrastructure is stable and well managed, though significant Disaster Recovery and technology architecture decisions are looming. Customers say “IT delivers a very high quality product.” But, management cohesiveness, delegation, silos, and governance issues are degrading the overall effectiveness of the department. Action is needed to address these issues and improve business trust.

Summary Recommendations:• Resolve the management cohesion issue. Develop effective, common standards and approaches the exhibit “One Leadership”

• Allow management to focus on leadership, not delivery. Delegate.• Implement common project management practices and metrics• Staff projects with matrixed teams and cross‐team oversight• Mature the IT Governance process and integrate GIS governance to form a single, business‐driven IT plan

• Address Disaster Recovery, and the Storage and Network refreshes in a combined technology strategy

• Mature Change and Asset/Configuration management practices• Realign organization to match 3‐5 year needs• Investigate 3rd party support savings for financial stewardship

Problem Area Good PracticesIssues to Watch

* GIS Support was assessed by Critigen as part of this assessment. Results are shown on a separate report.** IT security by Myers& Stauffer outside the scope of this assessment. Result approximated here. See report for details.

LeadershipCohesion

Assessment Pending


IT Strategic Plann


ent

point b

Summary AnalysisBusiness Requirements, Success Factors, Conversations, CMMI, S.W.O.T.

3 DRAFT – For IT Review Purposes Only ‐ Do Not Distribute

IT Strategic Plann


ent

point b

Key Business Requirements• High quality, responsive support from the Service Desk• Clear governance of IT priorities with predictable, visible delivery schedules• Capability to deliver major business improvement initiatives• Flexibility and capacity for limited, prioritized delivery during major projects• Reliable applications, desktop, and network infrastructure• Mobility to meet growing need for field‐based work efficiencies• Leadership in spatially‐aware systems and data (internal and public)• Enterprise and departmental spatial and non‐spatial data analytics• Information security• Financial stewardship


IT Strategic Plann


ent

point b

Success Factors• Cohesive Leadership: Resolve cohesiveness issues. Develop effective, common processes for managing IT. Staff should experience “One Leadership”

• Delegation: Keep management focused on leadership, not delivery. Delegate knowledge, skills, and tasks from management to staff and seniors to juniors

• Business Self‐Service: Enable the business with training and self‐service capabilities, allowing IT to focus on higher‐value competencies

• Governance: Develop and execute processes that ensure the effective and efficient use of IT in enabling an organization to achieve its goals

• Nimble Delivery: Maintain an appropriate pace of new or updated business capabilities even during major initiatives. Smaller deliverables, increased frequency, greater agility

• Cross‐IT Teamwork: Eliminate silos. Actively pursue a cross‐functional, matrixed team delivery model. Adopt common project management standards, processes, and delivery expectations

• Technology Strategy: Resolve the future technology standards before making major investments in lifecycle or upgrades


IT Strategic Plann


ent

point b

Conversations

6

We’re too busy

We need more resources

IT is the Department of “No”…

…but when IT delivers it’s very high quality

We LOVE the service desk. Super

responsive.

We’re all friends

“IT management team issues”

Projects don’t include all the

necessary teams

Why doesn’t IT support 7x24 for Police, Fire?

Headcount isn’t an equitable basis for my department

My needs are backed up behind Munis, Lucity

“High Performing” vs Super‐Hero Syndrome

We want to be able to share and relate data across departments

We don’t have the resources to maintain our

new data

I have skills that can help others


Last minute project tasks come “over

the fence”

ITConversations

CustomerConversations

IT Strategic Plann


ent

point b

High‐Level CMMI Assessment for Key Processes

7

L1 ‐ Initial• Not documented• Tribal knowledge• Effort‐driven• Frequently exceeds budget, schedule

L2 ‐ Repeatable• Basic processes• Some documented• Some repeatable• Project milestones reportable

• Local standards

L3 ‐ Defined• Well established• Consistent• Objectives known• Organizational process standards

• Qualitatively predictable

L4 ‐Managed• Managed by metrics• Adaptable w/o quality loss

• Sub‐processes align• Quantitatively predictable

L5 ‐Measured• Continuous process performance improvement

• Improvement objectives set

• Nimble, optimized

Service Management

Project Management

Governance

Software Implementation

Incident, Change are immature, but somewhat repeatable. Importance recognized. Problem process not in use. Major Incident clearly documented.

General project management practices include basic task, cost, schedule management and status reporting. Apps and GIS have localized processes and tools that are repeatable. Familiar with PMBOK basics. No dedicated PMs.

Limited input of assets and configurations into Service Now. Some documented. Rest is tribal knowledge. No standards yet. Not tied to Change Management for accuracy.

GIS governance in practice and liked by business. IT Governance is new, documented and working through maturation. Two processes not necessarily aligned as GIS approves locally.

Standard, practiced SDLC procedures across IT. Good business engagement. Formal testing. Process produces high‐quality results per business

ChangeProblem Incident Major IncidentAsset,

Configuration

GIS SteeringIT Steering


IT Strategic Plann


ent

point b

S.W.O.T. Analysis

8

Strength• Customers recognize IT’s high quality delivery• Service Desk responsiveness• Talent – All areas• Depth and breadth of app and tech support expertise• “We’re friends.” Teams willing to help each other• Simple, effective technology architectures• Reliable platforms• Recognition of the importance of standards, process• Good relationships with the business

Weakness• Management teamwork / cohesiveness• Leadership team heavily focused on delivery tasks• Siloed teams• Lack of cross‐team processes and tools• Long‐term technology standards not defined• Standards and processes, but mostly tribal knowledge• Immature change, configuration management controls• Holistic data management: Spatial, non‐spatial, cloud

Threat• No Disaster Recovery plans or capabilities• “Dept of No” drives business to seek external solutions• Independent governance: Emerging IT vs mature GIS• Customer frustration with headcount vs value‐received• Increasing frequency and types of cyber‐security risks• Loss of city revenue impacting key IT initiative funding• City capacity to shift capital to operating for cloud

Opportunity• Leverage Cloud to focus IT on core competencies• Resolve Disaster Recovery needs in tech architecture• “Data Capabilities” center‐of‐excellence• Grow business self‐service GIS and analytics capability• Potential cost avoidance from 3rd party support• Develop foundation for future IoT opportunities

External

Internal


IT Strategic Plann


ent

point b

Detailed ObservationsThe following section contains detailed observations gathered during interviews and chalk talks about the various functional and technical areas within Information Technology.


IT Strategic Plann


ent

point b

GIS – Assessment Themes

DRAFT – For IT Review Purposes Only ‐ Do Not Distribute10

Topic No. Topic*

Topic No. Topic

1 GIS Technology Adoption and Embracement 11 Staff Growth and Development

2 Accessibility to Geospatial Solutions ‐ Internal 12 Innovation

3Accessibility to Geospatial Solutions ‐Community 13 Delivery Capacity and Resilience

4 Applied GIS Solutions 14 Data Integrity and Reliability

5 Departmental Customer Service 15 Data Management Process

6 Business Process Alignment 16 Data Stewardship

7 Community Engagement 17 Governance

8 Training and Outreach 18 Project Prioritization

9 Organizational Efficiency and Alignment 19 Stakeholder Engagement

10 Staff Competency

The following topics were identified during the assessment process. The graph below shows an overview of each topic in the context of perceived need to sustain, streamline, expand or evolve. Topics closer to the center of the graph represent higher priority.

*An in‐depth description of each topic appears in the detailed report.

IT Strategic Plann


ent

point b

GIS ‐ S.W.O.T. Analysis Detail

11

Strength• Strong customer service ethic• Highly skilled and knowledgeable staff• Responsiveness to priority requests• Congenial personalities and cooperative spirit• Breadth of GIS staff knowledge across multiple

business disciplined• Reliability of data, products, and service• Engaged and representative governance structure• Active partnership in regional GIS projects

Weakness• Management heavily focused on delivery tasks• IT projects are managed in silos: GIS can be

unexpectedly impacted by other division priorities• Many stakeholders do not sufficiently understand the

complexity and level of effort required to maintain the City’s mature Enterprise GIS

• Some data is maintained in separate databases and not incorporated into the City’s geodatabase

Threat• Workload surges impact GIS stime and capacity to stay

current in industry trends. • Evolution of GIS industry requires continuous training

to maintain currency• Operational responsibilities limit Senior GIS capacity

for growth opportunities• Karl’s pending retirement creates resource shortage

Opportunity• Increase customer engagement • Additional business efficiencies via GIS technology• Business data, mapping, analysis self‐service• Senior staff are eager to advance their skills • ESRI/GIS is well‐positioned to support Smart Cities/IoT• GIS & Apps team engagement via spatial apps• Communications mitigate perception of “always busy”

External

Internal


IT Strategic Plann


ent

point b

Data Center Facilities

12

Cleanliness, Organization, LabelingPower

Cooling

Environment & Security MonitoringFire ProtectionRacks, cabinet design

UPS

Observations:• Overall cleanliness and organization shows care• Primary systems located in Bellevue data center with high survivability rating• Power in all 3 data centers on generator backup• Plenty of cooling in all 3 data centers• Gas fire suppression in City Hall• Fire protection, generators regularly tested• Multiple unplanned outages in Kirkland DC from inadequate fire alarm, generator procedures• Secondary data centers at Kirkland City Hall and Kirkland Justice Center are appropriately

equipped• Cabinet utilization is low at Bellevue, KJC (same for City Hall?)• KJC space underutilized (possibly due to CJIS?)• Excess capacity in all 3 data centers should be evaluated when cloud vs on‐premise decision

is made• Access to rear of racks in City Hall is suboptimal• Some remote IDFs may require additional physical tampering protection for exposed

equipment

Recommendations: • Review IDFs for physical security gaps and protection from accidental damage• Consider small, wall‐mount locked racks in IDFs for security and manageability• Reduce Bellevue rack count at next lease renewal• Develop and practice standardized procedures for generator and fire detection

system tests•

Remote Site IDF

Topic Summary


IT Strategic Plann


ent

point b

Servers, Storage

13

ArchitectureHardware Standardization & CurrencyResiliency

Storage

Observations• Robust, industry‐standard server and storage technology• Simple, effective architecture• VMWare environment on current hardware with significant growth capacity• Limited amount of non‐virtualized hardware with reasonable reasons to be there.• Retiring legacy hardware in Bellevue will produce significant space savings• Strong backup architecture via an online replication architecture between datacenters• No logfile backups for SQL. Daily full backups used when additional backups could be used

for roll‐forward.• Backups replicated within the region. No out‐of‐region backup copies• Monitoring and management tools using mostly default settings. Opportunity exists for

improvements.• Application level monitoring not configured other than default• Progressively increasing usage of SCCM for integrated management of the environment• (Chuck: What resilience is built into standalone physical servers?)

Recommendations:• Determine if all physical application servers have the required resiliency• Leverage CommVault vendor to determine capabilities, options, and costs for

additional out‐of‐region backup copy• Expand application monitoring beyond the default settings

Servers

Backup & RecoveryMonitoring & Management

Topic Summary


IT Strategic Plann


ent

point b

Network

14

WAN

LAN

? Remote Access VPN

Wireless

Observations:• Industry standard architectures using known technologies• Storage network not physically segregated from enterprise network• Wireless connection capacity being saturated in key high volume areas (council chambers,

PW emergency operations room, some downtown areas).• Internet egress averaging 85% capacity. Limited bandwidth for additional business needs

(O365, Evidence, Cloud)• No regular review of bandwidth consumption (Who, what, when, how much)• No policy on Morale data limits• Pursuing additional bandwidth before detailed studies of existing usage• Adding redundant internet connection for reliability• Large wired and wireless network refresh approaching due to lifecycle of equipment.• Some wired network devices reaching end of support• High cost of network warranties for older equipment• Network support purchased directly from Cisco. Have not evaluated 3rd party options• (Ask Chuck what QoS is in place)

Recommendations: • Segregate the storage and enterprise networks for increased performance• Conduct wireless technology study to determine how newer technology may

address saturation.• Review existing bandwidth consumption prior to analysis of expansion options.• Develop a policy for employee “morale data” limits (Social media, streaming,

other non‐business uses)• Consider 3rd party support for extended life of non‐mission‐critical systems• Consider Cisco‐certified warranty alternatives for new equipment

Cabling

ArchitectureHardware Standardization & Currency

Monitoring & Management

Internet Egress

Topic Summary


IT Strategic Plann


ent

point b

Desktop and Productivity

15

Standardization

Hardware

Suitability to task

Observations:• Good standardization of equipment• SCCM in use to manage desktop configurations, patching• Laptop and Desktop standards in place and adhered to• Some flexibility in desktop standards for unique business needs• Productivity Suite upgrade underway (to Office365)• Windows 10 deployment underway at refresh. Lags industry replacement schedules• Remaining Windows 7 machines inhibits ability to take advantage of other Office 365

productivity capabilities• Lifecycle has significant volume peaks causing periodic high capital costs and additional

vendor costs to address. 250 replacements in one year for size of organization is too high• No laptop or desktop backups, but My Documents is properly redirected to file shares. Some

customers still directly reference C:\ drive (typical)• Lingering issues with legacy Group Policy architecture (fixes are underway)• Retiring thin client. No significant presence left. Not required.• Laptops encrypted but not desktops• (Ask Desktop about impact of multiple major system implementations with O365)

Recommendations: • After 2018 lifecycle, remove all remaining Windows 7 asap• Continue Office365 implementation. Consider outside help to address approach,

configuration, and lessons learned• Rebalance 2018 lifecycle peaks to avoid high cost and external support required. • Train end users to stop using C:/ drive, especially when OneDrive becomes

available• Continue to eliminate legacy Group Policy configurations. Consider what

architectures will be required for optimal Azure use• Extend BitLocker to both desktops and laptops

Lifecycle

Desktop Backup & Recovery

Operating System

Productivity Suite

Citrix/Thin Client SupportNA

Disk encryption

Topic Summary


IT Strategic Plann


ent

point b

Disaster Recovery

16

Data Replication / Backup and Restore

IT Recovery FacilitiesRemote Access VPN to DR facility

Observations:• Little to no Disaster Recovery capabilities. In the event of a significant regional event the city

has a high probability of the loss IT services for 4‐6 months• Council authorized $150K funding which may be enough to establish offsite backup copies or

develop a DR plan• Data replicated between primary Bellevue data center and Kirkland City Hall• Backups of data replicated between primary Bellevue data center and Kirkland Justice Center• Loss of Bellevue data center would result in loss of most enterprise compute capacity• No DR contracts in place

Recommendations: • Consider short‐term options for interim storage of backups out of region (cloud,

hosted, 3rd party provider), or consider moving KJC Netapp out of region (Eastern Washington)

• Defer storage refresh 1‐2 years until cloud vs on‐premise decision can be made and implemented. Avoids unnecessary expenses.

• Defer network refresh until cloud vs on‐premise decision can be made. Avoids unnecessary expenses.

• Factor in full cost of DR capability into server, storage, network refresh decisions.• Validate that business continuity plans and maximum sustainable service

interruption times are documented and verified

Personnel FacilitiesGeographic DiversityTestingOffsite storage of IT configuration

Disaster Recovery Procedures

Topic Summary


IT Strategic Plann


ent

point b

Processes and Procedures

17

Incident ManagementProblem Management

Asset and Configuration Management

Observations:• Existing policies well‐written. Good focus on having policies. Organization generally

understands and accepts the need for standards, policies, procedures. • Cloud policy considers all key areas. Exercised with vendors by Apps teams.• Major Incident process well documented. Has all key features.• Standard Incident management process (except major) not documented.• Major incident process not invoked at last major incident (fire test)• Unclear how formally Major Incident process was invoked at past incidents• No defined problem management process • Change management has a process and a tool but is weak at identification,

classification, review, and control of changes• Change definition insufficient to control change while allowing velocity• Staff recognizes need to move Asset, Configurations to ServiceNow. Informally

underway. Service Now will likely support business need once implemented.• No process or enforcement for Configuration updates in the Change Management

process.• Technology standards not documented. Primarily tribal knowledge.• Some operational procedures around Database Administration.• Mature GIS Governance process. Customers like it.• IT Governance process is maturing. Efforts underway to improve. • Unclear how GIS steering committee priorities are processed against overall IT

needs in IT Governance. What is the process for changing GIS priorities in IT Governance?

• (Ask Brenda for the complete IT Governance project list)• Regular OS license compliance check. All bought through Select. • SQL licenses are audited, but virtual SQL license compliance needs to be checked,

especially in virtual environment and with consolidated DB servers.• Other licenses not audited, though some controls in place around purchase• Some regular IT license compliance management

Recommendations: • Review, refine, and train all service management processes in this order: Change,

Asset/Configuration, Incident, Problem• Leverage new 3rd party software supplier, and SCCM tool for license audits• Align IT and GIS governance processes. Determine requirement for Applications

guiding committee.• Identify key operational procedures and policies to document. Schedule over a

reasonable time frame.• Document technology standards (emerging, standard, sunsetting) for all

technologies. Use simple matrix format

Change Management

Technology and Operations StandardsOperational Policies and ProceduresSoftware License ManagementIT Governance

Topic Summary


IT Strategic Plann


ent

point b

Skills and Organization

18

Size / HeadcountSkills relative to rolesTraining

Observations:• Good technical and application skills for meeting the business requirements• Training generally keeps skills in line with technology• Database Administration requirements growing beyond capacity and skills of staff• Inconsistent data base management capabilities across Apps and GIS teams• Dawn’s departure is a loss of the most senior DBA skills• Overlap of GIS vs Apps team’s role & responsibility domains creates issues• Projects are formed in silos of teams. Cross‐team project management is not encouraged

and staff indicate sometimes it is specifically discouraged• Inconsistent project management approaches across teams degrades project delivery

efficiency• IT staff are all friends and want to help each other• “We’re too busy, we need more resources” is a common response to business requests. IT

governance must leverage scope and schedule effectively to mitigate perceived resource shortages. Otherwise, the business is both the reason for and challenger of additional IT headcount.

• Growing requirements for data‐related capabilities and controls may present skill and efficiency opportunities

• Morale generally good but tempered by management cohesiveness creating perceived inequities and divisions

• Customers acutely aware of morale issues in IT

Recommendations:• Redefine roles and responsibilities of GIS and Apps teams to clearly define scope

of each team.• Organizational roles & responsibilities redefinition, along with a subsequent

realignment of personnel, is needed to meet 3‐5 year objectives• Consider development of data and analytics team owning DBs, warehousing, data

processing, analytics• Develop new and common Project Management standards and definitions• Eliminate siloed PM approaches. Matrix ALL projects and allocate resources

accordingly• Leadership should not serve as project managers for major initiatives• Hire contract Project Management for major projects. • Lead business transformation projects from the business side, not IT.• Build cost of project management into the cost of the project

Appropriate use of external resources

Roles and responsibilities

MoraleProject Management

Topic Summary


Organization structure to meet 3‐5 year objectives

IT Strategic Plann


ent

point b

Leadership

19

Management Cohesion

Delegation / Succession

Managerial/Tactical Focus

Observations:Leadership• Good leadership skillsets • Management team respected by their staff• Leadership fosters good working relationships with customers• Good communications between management team and their direct reports• Hiring practices foster long‐term employees• Management is collaborating well on early strategic planning phases• Succession plan for Karl is dependent upon resolving Xiaoning’s tactical/managerial balance • Operational and delivery tasks that have not been delegated are significantly distracting the

management team from leadership responsibilities• Tendency for “Superhero Syndrome.” Need to balance delivery, scope, schedule, resources

Cohesion• Significant personality and trust issues have significantly eroded management cohesion• Management cohesiveness issue has caused silos to develop between teams• Lack of cohesiveness and siloed practices and processes are severely impacting the ability of

the organization to deliver to its full capability• Management team charter practices have not been fully implemented and embraced• IT morale generally good but tempered by management cohesiveness issues that are

creating perceived inequities and divisions• Staff morale remains in jeopardy as management issues continue• Lack of collaborative management approach addressing promotions

Recommendations:• Resolve the management cohesion issue. Develop effective, shared standards

and approaches that reinforce common core leadership• Develop common practices and systems for project management, delegation,

promotion, matrixed work assignments, roles and responsibilities, governance• Support managerial differences that allow individual team cultures• Project team formation must actively identify resourcing from all teams and

disciplines, as appropriate.

Management Morale

Ability to Lead as Individuals

Ability to Lead as a Management Team

Topic Summary


Leadership

Cohesion

Cohesion Leadership

Management/Staff communicationPriority settingMajor project leadership

Impact of cohesion and siloed practices on IT

IT Strategic Plann


ent

point b

Applications Support

20

Application AdministrationApplications Security Management

Observations:• Simple architecture. Low integration needs except GIS enablement, Finance charges• Overall architecture managed by tribal knowledge. No standards documented.• Application asset and configuration management maintained primarily by Karen, Chuck• Analysts exhibit good breadth and depth in application support skills and abilities• Knowledgeable on application, data, and infrastructure layers• Good engagement of business in testing and training• Good application catalog. Configuration inventory low, supported only by Manager• Some scripting and coding skills in group. Experts offer assistance to others.• Contracts reviewed by application analysts before sending to management• Application analysts leverage vendor relationships. Cloud will require new practices.• Strong desire to leverage formal project management more frequently than present• Losing key DBA skills. DBA workload increasing. Analytics may increase further• Business resistance to upgrade on some applications puts supportability in jeopardy.• Cloud adoption strategy not documented in overall IT strategy. • Resistance to cloud due to data accessibility concerns• Analysts concerned with workload• Application manager is also a SME. Delivery tasks are impacting leadership focus.• Role‐based security is controlled by the “new user” setup form, authorized by business units• Post‐new user adds, changes, deletes handled via email and documentation is not

necessarily maintained.• Perception that major system implementations are IT projects, not business‐driven, put

burden of success and business adoption on IT

Recommendations:• Mitigate business’ application patching hesitancy with strong project

management, testing, and end user engagement• Consider engaging external project management for significant projects and

whether the project should be owned by IT or the business• Given the growth of data and analytics, consider creating a dedicated DBA role or

data “center of excellence.”• Add Cloud strategy and architecture to the overall IT strategy. Develop data

integration capabilities.• Apply “new user” application security controls to requests for existing users

Database AdministrationProject ManagementVendor ManagementCloud Strategy / IntegrationTrainingBusiness Super User / ParticipationApplication Currency / PatchingApplication StandardsApplication Configuration Management

Architecture / Integration

Topic Summary


IT Strategic Plann


ent

point b

Security

21

Critical systems configurationPhysical securityOrganizational assessment

Key Findings*:• Internal Network Vulnerabilities: Critical, High, Medium, and Low • Information Security Program • Senior Information Security Officer • Missing Documented Policy, Procedure, and Plans • Existing Controls Not Sufficiently Documented • Out of Date Documentation • Service Level Agreement • External Information System Assessments • Email and Phone Phishing Awareness • Server and Database Audit Logs • VPN Encryption Connection • Configuration File Vulnerability Scan: Firewall/Router/Switch • Media Protection • PREPARE: Mobile Device Policy Requirements • Physical Security Authorization Records • Observed IT Workspace Unsecure Information or Equipment

*Includes findings and remediation recommendations for all issues rated “High” in the report

Key Recommendations*• Update NTP servers. Restrict access to audit logs. Retain audit logs• Update the VPN SSL certificate to only allow TSL 1.2. Require FIPS 140‐2 modules• Apply hardening recommendations for Nessus and CIS benchmark vulnerabilities• Develop a formal process to track and retain physical access approvals• Develop a formal NIST 800‐53 r4 PM‐1 compliant Information Security Program• Implement process for auditing security compliance of 3rd party providers• Broaden IT Vendor Security Policy to all IT vendors and include in IT contracts• Develop media storage and media sanitization processes• Establish a dedicated information security officer/analyst position• Develop/update policies for missing/outdated controls listed on page 34‐42• Develop a formal Risk management and Data Classification plan• Enhance the Wireless Communication Device Policy and baseline security req’s• Remediate internal and external vulnerability scan findings• Improve Email and Phone Phishing Awareness and training• Address security of workspace data/information during non‐business hours

External vulnerability scan

Policies and procedures

Internal vulnerability scanSocial engineering

Topic Summary


Mobile devices

Summary of Network Security AssessmentIn October 2017, the City of Kirkland Information Technology department contracted Myers & Stauffer LC to conduct a network security assessment. This slide summarizes the results of that study.

For further details, see the network security assessment study documentation

Wireless security

IT Strategic Plann


ent

point b

Appendix: Legend

22

Good Practices – Some issues may exist but are minorIssues to Watch – Issues exist that should be addressed as appropriateProblem Area – Significant issues exist that need to be addressed as a priorityTrending – Status is trending from left value to right value (in this case from Yellow status to Red)

NA Not applicable or not addressed in the study? Further investigation necessary to determine if this is a relevant area for IT

Topic Summary Summary evaluation for the overall topical area. Circle indicates overall assessment considering risk, impact, and importance of the various individual topics.

TextCommon or specifically pertinent themes heard during the assessment process. These add perspective to the overall assessment and indicate trends or perceptions that should be recognized

Process Name or Area Text: General description of the capability maturity observed Assessed

MaturityRecommended

TargetMaturity


City of Kirkland GIS Assessment December 2017

Prepared by:

CITY OF KIRKLAND GIS ASSESSMENT 1

CITY OF KIRKLAND GIS ASSESSMENT

Contents Objectives .................................................................................................................................................................. 2

Methodology .............................................................................................................................................................. 2

Key Observations ....................................................................................................................................................... 2

Shared Values............................................................................................................................................................. 3

Department Desire Themes ....................................................................................................................................... 4

Independent Performance ........................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Increased Access .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 5

Outreach and Engagement Tools ................................................................................................................................................................. 5

What Is Possible? ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 5

Applied Training ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 5

Refinement of Tools for Efficiency ............................................................................................................................................................... 5

Sustain and Expand Existing Technology Investments ................................................................................................................................. 6

GIS Division S.W.O.T Analysis ..................................................................................................................................... 6

Assessment Themes ................................................................................................................................................... 7

1 - GIS Technology Adoption and Engagement ............................................................................................................................................ 8

2 - Accessibility to Geospatial Solutions – Internal ...................................................................................................................................... 8

3 - Accessibility to Geospatial Solutions – Community ................................................................................................................................ 8

4 - Applied GIS Solutions .............................................................................................................................................................................. 8

5 - Departmental Customer Service ............................................................................................................................................................. 8

6 - Business Process Alignment .................................................................................................................................................................... 8

7 - Community Engagement ........................................................................................................................................................................ 8

8 – Training and Outreach............................................................................................................................................................................ 8

9 - Organizational Efficiency and Alignment ................................................................................................................................................ 9

10 - Staff Competency .................................................................................................................................................................................. 9

11 - Technology and Advancement .............................................................................................................................................................. 9

12 - Innovation ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 9

13 - Delivery Capacity and Resilience ........................................................................................................................................................... 9

14 - Data Integrity and Reliability................................................................................................................................................................. 9

15 - Data Management Process ................................................................................................................................................................. 10

16 – Data Stewardship ............................................................................................................................................................................... 10

17 – Governance ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 10

18 - Project Prioritization ........................................................................................................................................................................... 10

19 - Stakeholder Engagement .................................................................................................................................................................... 10



Objectives Discover values shared by GIS Division and GIS user community

Identify themes related to City department desires related to GIS service and technology

Observe adoption level of GIS as a technology by individual City departments and demand for additional

services

Assess stakeholder desires as related to key decision drivers:

o Sustain

o Streamline

o Expand

o Evolve

Identify opportunities for refining, expanding, and evolving applied GIS technology

Methodology Over the course of two weeks, interviews were conducted with key stakeholders at the City of Kirkland.

Stakeholders that were interviewed included:

Department Directors & Assistant Directors

GIS users from each department

Customers of the GIS Division

GIS Division staff including Analysts and Senior Analysts

GIS management

City management

In addition, presentations and Q&A sessions were conducted with both the GIS Users Group and the GIS

Steering Committee. Insights from all interviews and discussions were synthesized to provide a qualitative

assessment of the City of Kirkland GIS program and how it is leveraged by departments across the City.

Key Observations GIS is foundational to City business processes

Leadership and staff have a “can-do” attitude [GIS Division?]

The GIS staff are talented, trained, and congenial

Stakeholders in general acknowledge the GIS division’s workload commitment and schedule constraints.

The perception of “busy” may make some stakeholders reticent to solicit GIS assistance, especially for

less critical tasks.

Technology foundation is robust but needs refinement

The GIS Division’s ability to execute its 2016-2017 approved work plan was impacted by the Lucity

implementation with had some effect on user expectations. Repurposing GIS staff to the Lucity

implementation was a strategic City decision that was communicated to, understood and accepted by all

departments. The decision did not cause significant satisfaction erosion – a testament to the

communication and partnership that occurs between the GIS division and departments.

The GIS Division is committed to being a service organization

GIS data is viewed as reliable and trustworthy



With the exception of certain public safety data, there is no restriction on any portion of the GIS data

repository. Access is via desktop software, two different GIS browsers, products, etc. Both access to the

data warehouse and utilization of its resources can be improved, especially through training.

While GIS is recognized as foundational to many City operations, it is not always recognized as a critical

business system. Not all stakeholders have full understanding of the complexity of technical and

operational processes required to operate and maintain the GIS.

Innovation is valued when it adds efficiency and frees up time

Innovation is project-based and driven by business need. Innovation is fundamental to the systematic

service delivery to which the GIS Division has committed, within the policy and governance role of the

GIS Steering Committee.

Sustainability and stability are as important as innovation and adoption of new technology

Shared Values The following shared values were identified as common among stakeholders across the City. A brief description

for each of the values was developed specific to the City. These values were identified as the core drivers behind

how the City operates, makes decisions, and invests resources.

Value Description

Service Providing quality service to both internal and external stakeholders was identified as a core value to the City. Specifically, each of the departments within the City strives to provide a high level of customer service to citizens through engagement and outreach, clear and transparent business processes, and community cooperation. An overarching theme of service as the means of providing a high quality of livability City was identified throughout interviews.

Innovation Departments understand the value of innovation within the context of rapidly changing technology, as well as a driver towards efficiency. The concept of innovation for problem solving was identified as important to stakeholders; however, the time and resources for innovation are perceived as limited outside of the immediacy of necessary problem solving. In addition, the City’s position as risk-averse was identified as a barrier to innovation, especially when associated with critical business processes or systems

Technology The City has traditionally kept up with the technology landscape but has been reticent to be early adopters of new technology. Early adoption is sometimes inhibited by business process or system requirements that dictate a more conservative approach to mitigate risk or prioritization needs resulting for a lack of resources. While some departments have leveraged advanced technologies within their workflows, there is desire for continued investment and advancement of technologies used by departments. Technology advancement is typically driven by industry trends, upgrade requirements resulting from software/hardware end of life, and the desire for improved efficiency, transparency, and reporting.



Value Description

Responsiveness Responsiveness was identified as a core value shared by departments across the City. Specifically, departments strive to be responsive to requests from citizens and stakeholders, City management, and internal stakeholders. The level of responsiveness and inter-departmental cooperation is acknowledged to be high – while competing priorities and a lack of human capital and time are limiting factors. These can sometimes diminish responsiveness. However, departments responded that effective communication of shifting priorities occurs and is a strong driver for maintaining positive inter-departmental relationships.

Self-sufficiency Each department expressed interest in becoming more self-sufficient regarding performance of tasks directly related to their business processes and operational needs. Departments see value in increased ownership of data maintenance, independent performance of reporting and analytics, and the availability of configurable tools related to their specific needs. The value in taking on additional ownership is the increased availability of resources that could then be leveraged to develop new technical offerings or provide high level services. The value in distributing some of the GIS Division’s workload where appropriate is to free up GIS resources for new developmental work or other enhanced services.

Reliability The reliability of services, technology, and data was identified as critical to City operations and is valued highly by City departments. Trust in technology and data was identified as an area warranting continued investment in sustainment and stability.

Efficiency The rigors of City operations coupled with a conservative approach to City resource investments has created a strong drive for identifying and implementing means to increase efficiency across all departments. As the City maintains a conservative budget forecast for the near-term, project priorities will be driven in part by resource capacities. Any efficiencies that can be enacted as part of business or technology process have a perceived benefit of increased capacity that can be allocated to additional initiatives.

Department Desire Themes Throughout interviews with City departments, common themes surfaced in relation to the need for GIS services.

Stakeholders were challenged to consider how they currently use GIS in their business process and technology,

and how that use might be expanded in the future. Technology that leverages GIS is evolving and expanding

rapidly. The technology advances create demands for new and enhanced services from both citizens and City

stakeholders. As such, technology evolution and the changes to procedure it can drive were considered.

Stakeholders were also asked to identify existing technologies and processes that they feel need continued

attention for sustainment.

Independent Performance Self-service map creation, analysis, and reporting is a common desire shared by most departments. While

stakeholders are satisfied with GIS service levels, they appreciate the efficiency that comes from being able to

perform less-complex tasks within their departments. Self-service can help stakeholders be nimbler decision-

makers, have more flexibility to analyze options, and free GIS staff to focus on higher value or higher priority

items.



Increased Access Departments need increased access to data, analytics, and dashboards that synthesize multi-system data into

useful information for decision-making. Technologies such as ArcGIS Portal and ArcGIS Online are on the short-

term roadmap for implementation by the GIS Division. These technologies can be adapted, with the obvious

caveat of training and proficiency checks, to meet individual departments’ needs. Increased outreach, training,

and engagement with departments by GIS staff will be necessary to adequately meet requirements, provide

knowledge transfer, and educate on GIS best practices related to mapping and analysis.

Outreach and Engagement Tools The capabilities of GIS as a tool for communication and analysis are valued by most City departments.

Stakeholders are seeking tools that will help improve outreach and communication with the community. The

development of such tools is likely to increase community engagement by not only providing timely information,

but also allowing the community to engage with the City via electronic means.

What Is Possible? While departments have a handle on traditional applications of GIS technologies, there is desire for insight into

and understanding of new advancements and the “art of the possible” when it comes to building upon the

strong GIS foundation that the City has established. Keeping departments updated on evolving technical

offerings related to GIS, as well as use cases from other government entities, will require outreach and

engagement from the GIS staff.

Applied Training Departments have a desire for more outreach and training from the GIS Division specific to their business

processes and City data. Third party training, such as Esri webinars, have been utilized previously as a means for

continued training and outreach by some stakeholders due to limited availability of GIS staff to develop and

deliver City-specific training. The feedback is that, while providing some technical benefit, the training is often

“canned” and there are barriers to applying concepts to City process and data. Providing focused training will

require dedicated time and investment of GIS staff resources; however, gains in time would be realized on the

back end due to increased departmental self-sufficiency.

Refinement of Tools for Efficiency The GIS staff have developed specific models and scripting that is used in a variety of analytical and reporting

processes. While there is opportunity for these types of models across all City departments, the Planning and

Public Works departments are heavy users of these types of models. Since the models were designed and

implemented by the GIS Division, the execution of the models typically requires the expertise of the GIS staff.

This can result in significant workload when model inputs must be changed, and maps revised so that subject

matter experts in departments can evaluate the model results and shift the input variables. Further refining

models so that they are more end-user friendly would allow subject matter experts more flexibility to make

changes to model inputs and see the output without having to send these requests through GIS staff. This would

result in increased efficiency at both the GIS and department level.

The GIS Division has implemented tools to make GIS mapping and analysis available to internal and external

stakeholders via the GIS Browsers. Departments expressed interest in increasing the utility of the GIS Browsers

by developing applied workflows and points of entry for specific use cases. Ongoing development, user

experience feedback, training, and refinement of the GIS Browsers should be a focus.



Sustain and Expand Existing Technology Investments The City has made significant investment in GIS over the last decade and a half. Specific applications built upon

this strong GIS foundation are adding spatial dimensions and insight to business workflows in departments

throughout the City. There is considerable desire to maintain focus on sustaining both the GIS foundation these

solutions are built upon, as well as provide ongoing support and expansion of these technologies into other

business process cases. Specific examples cited as needing sustained focus are support for Lucity, EnerGov, and

the Internal GIS Browser.

GIS Division S.W.O.T Analysis The strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats below were identified through the assessment interview

process.

STRENGTH WEAKNESS

Strong customer service ethic

Highly skilled and knowledgeable staff

Responsiveness to priority requests

Congenial personalities and cooperative spirit

Breadth of GIS staff knowledge across multiple business disciplines

Reliability of data, products, and service

Solid annual work plans (citywide and individual) to support city’s initiatives and allow staff development

Robust use of GIS tools and data sources to deliver consistently high-quality data analytics to a broad clientele

Engaged and representative governance structure through GIS Steering Committee

Active partnership in regional GIS projects such as regional orthophotography flights

Management can become heavily involved in project delivery which takes their focus away from management and strategic tasks.

IT projects are managed in silos: GIS can be unexpectedly impacted by other division priorities and vice versa.

Many stakeholders do not sufficiently understand the complexity and level of effort required to maintain the City’s mature Enterprise GIS.

Data maintained in separate repositories/business systems requires recurring, additional effort by GIS staff for intake processing and ongoing management.

OPPORTUNITY THREAT

Increase engagement with departments to better understand their business requirements and pain points.

Identify and advocate for GIS technology that brings efficiency to business processes or increased service to departments.

Push data management, mapping, and analysis responsibilities closer to the business as appropriate.

ESRI/GIS is well-positioned to help City with Smart Cities / Internet of Things.

As more enterprise systems become spatially enabled or even dependent, increase interaction with the enterprise applications team.

Continue and expand communication and outreach with departments regarding current priorities and tasks to mitigate perception of “always busy”.

Encourage and accommodate staff’s enthusiasm for career enhancement (for example, project

Workload surges caused by unplanned tasks can impact GIS staff’s time and capacity to stay current in industry trends.

‘Imminent’ retirement of Karl creates an advisory void and workload-leveling issue. There should be a clear transition plan in place.

GIS industry trends and technology evolution are changing GIS professional responsibility requirements. Staff who fail to proactively adapt to this evolution will impact the GIS program as well as limit themselves career-wise.

GIS staff need to take advantage of the flexibilities within the GIS Work Plan and their own personalized work plans, and proactively use effective time management skills to realize growth opportunities.



management and application development) while maintaining annual work plan priorities.

Assessment Themes The following topics were identified during the assessment process. The graph below shows an overview of each

topic in the context of perceived need to sustain, streamline, expand or evolve. Topics closer to the center of the

graph represent higher priority. An in-depth description of each topic appears below.

Topic No. Topic Topic No. Topic

1 GIS Technology Adoption and Embracement 11 Staff Growth and Development

2 Accessibility to Geospatial Solutions - Internal 12 Innovation

3 Accessibility to Geospatial Solutions - Community 13 Delivery Capacity and Resilience

4 Applied GIS Solutions 14 Data Integrity and Reliability

5 Departmental Customer Service 15 Data Management Process

6 Business Process Alignment 16 Data Stewardship

7 Community Engagement 17 Governance

8 Training and Outreach 18 Project Prioritization

9 Organizational Efficiency and Alignment 19 Stakeholder Engagement

10 Staff Competency 20 Data Analytics



1 - GIS Technology Adoption and Engagement There exists opportunity for the increased adoption of GIS technology by individual stakeholders across all City

departments, as well as more concentrated or focused use by specific departments.

2 - Accessibility to Geospatial Solutions – Internal While the Internal GIS Browser provides access to GIS data viewing and mapping for broad applications,

stakeholders would like more applied training in its use, as well as refinement of tools specific to business

process workflows. A large part of this is users committing to training and regular use of GIS to maintain skill

sets.

3 - Accessibility to Geospatial Solutions – Community The External GIS Browser provides a tool for community viewing of GIS data, mapping, generating reports, and

performing certain spatial analysis functions. This tool, while robust, can be overwhelming to novice users.

Enhancing the user experience through development of focused tools and points of entry could increase the

utility of the External GIS Browser. In addition, capturing metrics on browser usage and users would help guide

where the enhancements should be.

4 - Applied GIS Solutions Departments would like access to tools to help them independently perform analysis and mapping that is part of

their everyday decision-making process. Ideas for applied tools should continue to be developed in partnership

with departments as the driver of the business requirements and the GIS staff as the technical experts for

identifying what is possible with GIS technology. The GIS Division should provide scale and scope required to

execute the vision, and it should be presented to the GIS Steering Committee for consideration and

prioritization.

5 - Departmental Customer Service Cross-departmental service, as well as service to the larger community, are cornerstone to City operations and

values. As such, the GIS Division provides friendly, efficient, and responsive service to other City departments.

Leveraging the GIS Division as a service organization focused on delivery, outreach, and engagement should

continue to be a priority.

6 - Business Process Alignment As an enterprise service organization, all GIS staff should have a fundamental understanding of the broad

business operations of each City department as related to GIS service. Further alignment of more specific

business process requirements to key staff should continue to be a focus and expanded to departments such as

Police, HR, and Fire to fully exploit GIS technology use and adoption across the City. The GIS Division should

continue to help identify, train, and mentor additional super-users in City departments.

7 - Community Engagement As the knowledge leaders in GIS technology for the City, the GIS staff should stay abreast of GIS technology

trends to inform internal stakeholders, as well as the larger community, about innovations that could benefit

City operations, livability, public safety, or other City goals.

8 – Training and Outreach Continued expansion and adoption of GIS technology at the City will require training and outreach by the GIS

staff to align the “art of the possible” to specific City business needs. Time for development and delivery of



training centered on existing and near-term technologies, such as the Internal GIS Browser, Portal for ArcGIS,

and ArcGIS Online, should be allocated to the work plan for each staff member. Note that it has been already,

but deferred…

9 - Organizational Efficiency and Alignment Development of more efficient processes, as well as moving mapping, analytics, and data management (where

appropriate) closer to the business will provide GIS staff more time for tasks such as outreach, implementing

tools and applications, training, and delivery of higher value work. Clear planning, guidelines, quality control

procedures, and cooperation will be required to migrate any tasks from the GIS Division out to business

departments.

10 - Staff Competency The City has a highly competent staff with deep domain experience in City business processes, data acumen, and

GIS technology. Continued investment in training and conference participation will be critical to maintaining the

robust GIS program the City has invested in, as well as evolving GIS solutions to an ever-increasing cadence of

technological change.

11 - Technology and Advancement Staff have interest in and capability to grow the skills required for taking on increased responsibility related to

technology, project management, and project scoping. Individual work plans are developed jointly each year

considering pre-set and agreed-upon proportions allocated for routine GIS production/maintenance, special

projects, training/professional growth, and other (admin, vacation/sick leave, holidays, etc.). Within this

framework, staff are encouraged to take advantage of opportunities to grow professionally including assuming

greater levels of responsibility. Over time, this model has appeared to work well in proportion to an individual’s

interest and comfort level, as well as ability to manage time. Major shifting of GIS work plan priorities, such as

those incurred in 2016-17, can affect work priorities but doesn’t inherently diminish staff opportunities for

professional growth.

12 - Innovation Innovation is valued in the context of solving immediate problems. Innovation should also be examined in a

forward-thinking capacity and leveraged to bring capabilities, efficiencies, and new dimensions of GIS forward.

To deliver forward-thinking innovation, staff need to have the ability to initiate proactive, innovative thinking.

Major workload surges and recurring juggling of staff priorities can hamper this theme.

13 - Delivery Capacity and Resilience The GIS Division and its staff are trusted to deliver and respected across the City. As such, they may be called

upon to perform “special projects” that can be of varying size and duration. While these decisions are made

strategically with overarching City goals in mind, it is important that continued consideration be given to other

business-critical processes that must be performed during the special project implementation. The City should

evaluate the use of consultants, contract employees, or reassignment of duties during special project

implementations as an alternative or supplement to major reassignment of GIS staff.

14 - Data Integrity and Reliability The City has invested heavily in the last 15 years in the breadth and integrity of its GIS data. Specific workflows

for the creation and maintenance of GIS data have been implemented to ensure quality and adherence to

business requirements. As the number of GIS layers the City maintains continues to expand, resources must be



allocated to maintenance and quality control of the GIS data. In addition, the City should work with external

vendors to enhance delivery of data in formats that are more easily integrated with the City GIS data model and

more aligned with City data standards. An example would be delivery of CAD data in useable coordinate space

and format along with PDFs for as-builts. Better alignment and delivery of data in City formats will decrease the

effort required by GIS staff to integrate the data into the City GIS database.

15 - Data Management Process Since significant investment has been, and continues to be, allocated to develop and maintain the City’s robust

GIS dataset and tools, rigorous data management processes have been implemented to ensure quality and

mitigate risk. Technology has evolved in recent years that allows for improved disaster recovery, version control,

and quality assurance of GIS data. Any changes to City data management processes, such as distributed editing

and stewardship of data, should apply continued rigorous data management practices, as well as centralized

data storage, to maintain GIS data quality assurance.

16 – Data Stewardship Moving data stewardship of GIS data from the GIS Division outward to the business department is meant to

increase the efficiency of GIS data change management, allow better insight and feedback from the business

regarding their data, and free GIS staff resources by evolving their role from data maintainers to data quality

assurers. The increased role of mobile technologies allows end users to collect and make updates to data in the

field without having to rely on communicating the change to a GIS staff member on the back end in order to

make the change. Any distribution of data stewardship will require partnership and commitment between the

GIS Division and the department for continued quality assurance of the data and clear roles and responsibilities

for data management and upkeep.

17 – Governance GIS program work plans are currently developed and prioritized by the GIS Steering Committee. This committee

has been successful at creating a cooperative means to prioritize the shared GIS staff resources across all City

departments. Representation on this committee consists of department directors or assistant directors and City

management. During meetings, project schedule, prioritization, and budgeting are discussed and concurrence

on any changes to the GIS work plan is obtained. The existing governance structure was reported to work well

by departments and provides a mechanism for participatory prioritization.

18 - Project Prioritization Medium to large projects are currently prioritized by the GIS Steering Committee. Smaller projects internal to

the GIS Division are prioritized through a collaboration between the GIS manager, GIS staff involved, and with

input from the requesting department. While time is allocated in each individual GIS staff member’s annual

work plan for addressing unplanned project work, a significant volume of unplanned projects typically causes

shuffling and reprioritization of work plan projects. Shuffling and reprioritization are part of most organizations’

reality due to the impact of naturally occurring unknowns that cannot be planned for; however, critical projects

should continue to be protected against reprioritization where appropriate to meet prior commitments.

Continued partnership with departments and governance through the GIS Steering Committee is essential to the

project prioritization process and maintaining GIS as a collaborative enterprise program.

19 - Stakeholder Engagement The GIS User Group, consisting of GIS users from individual departments as well as the GIS staff, meets regularly

to discuss technical topics related to GIS technologies, City GIS data, and individual work plans. The meeting is



well attended and serves to ensure all GIS users across the City receive up to date information on GIS Division

technologies and initiatives.

20. – Data Analytics A core GIS function is the business benefit found in data analysis. The GIS Division performs data analysis spanning a broad range of complexities. GIS stores feature attributes in tables and can easily create derivative tabular data using feature overlay or proximity analysis operations. External tabular data sources can be imported into and used within GIS, with or without spatial (geographic) links to map features. Standard GIS data management tools support queries, models, reports, and robust visualization options, whether or not map-based. Much of the city’s GIS service delivery leverages data analytics across a wide user base, which should continue. Where feasible, development of targeted analysis tools for business unit super users should be an ongoing GIS program goal.

CITY OF KIRKLANDCouncil/...The Strategic Plan contains a benchmark evaluation of Kirkland’s IT...

Documents

Transcript of CITY OF KIRKLANDCouncil/...The Strategic Plan contains a benchmark evaluation of Kirkland’s IT...